↓ 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

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 33 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 21%
Student > Master 6 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 15%
Other 4 12%
Unspecified 3 9%
Other 9 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 24%
Unspecified 6 18%
Social Sciences 6 18%
Psychology 3 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Other 9 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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
#3,549,840
of 12,353,024 outputs
Outputs from Health Expectations
#368
of 785 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,127
of 241,226 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Expectations
#16
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,353,024 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 785 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 241,226 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.