↓ Skip to main content

Biosamples as gifts? How participants in biobanking projects talk about donation

Overview of attention for article published in Health Expectations, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
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
Biosamples as gifts? How participants in biobanking projects talk about donation
Published in
Health Expectations, June 2015
DOI 10.1111/hex.12376
Pubmed ID
Authors

Louise Locock, Anne-Marie R Boylan

Abstract

In the UK, altruism has featured explicitly as an underpinning principle for biobanking. However, conceptualizing donation as altruistic downplays the role of reciprocity and personal or family benefit. To investigate how biosample donors talk about their donation and whether they regard samples as 'gifts'. In this qualitative study, 21 people, both healthy volunteers and people with health conditions, who had been invited to give biosamples took part in semi-structured narrative interviews. The data were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. The term 'gift' was considered appropriate by some, but it also evoked puzzlement, especially in relation to 'waste' material (e.g. urine or tumour samples). Whilst 'giving' or 'donating' were commonly mentioned, the noun 'gift' signified something more special and deliberate. Analysis suggested biosamples could be interpreted as gifts in several different ways, including unreserved gift; reciprocal gift; collective gift; unwanted/low-value gift; and gift as an exaggeration. Although people describe a network of exchange consistent with anthropological understandings of gift relationships, lay (and biomedical) understandings of the term 'gift' may differ from anthropological definitions. For donors (and researchers), value is attached to the information derived from the sample, rather than the sample itself. Consequently, when asking people for biosamples, we should avoid using the term 'gift'. Acknowledging the value of participation and the information the sample holds may mean more to potential donors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 68 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 5 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 7%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 18 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 11 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Psychology 4 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 25 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 30 June 2015.
All research outputs
#15,402,098
of 25,724,500 outputs
Outputs from Health Expectations
#1,286
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,706
of 279,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Expectations
#11
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,724,500 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 279,468 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.