↓ Skip to main content

The elusive ideal of inclusiveness: lessons from a worldwide survey of neurologists on the ethical issues raised by whole-genome sequencing

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The elusive ideal of inclusiveness: lessons from a worldwide survey of neurologists on the ethical issues raised by whole-genome sequencing
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12910-017-0187-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thierry Hurlimann, Iris Jaitovich Groisman, Béatrice Godard

Abstract

The anticipation of ethical issues that may arise with the clinical use of genomic technologies is crucial to envision their future implementation in a manner sensitive to local contexts. Yet, populations in low- and middle-income countries are underrepresented in studies that aim to explore stakeholders' perspectives on the use of such technologies. Within the framework of a research project entitled "Personalized medicine in the treatment of epilepsy", we sought to increase inclusiveness by widening the reach of our survey, inviting neurologists from around the world to share their views and practices regarding the use of whole-genome sequencing in clinical neurology and its associated ethics. We discuss herein the compelling scientific and ethical reasons that led us to attempt to recruit neurologists worldwide, despite the lack, in many low- or middle-income countries, of access to genomic technologies. Recruitment procedures and their results are presented and discussed, as well as the barriers we faced. We conclude that inclusive recruitment remains a challenging, albeit necessary and legitimate, endeavour.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 20%
Researcher 5 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Other 3 7%
Lecturer 1 2%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 14 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 12%
Social Sciences 4 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Computer Science 2 5%
Other 9 22%
Unknown 16 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 October 2017.
All research outputs
#7,014,252
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#586
of 994 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,164
of 310,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#13
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 994 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,118 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.