↓ Skip to main content

Returning a Research Participant's Genomic Results to Relatives: Analysis and Recommendations

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, January 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#49 of 977)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
18 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 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
Returning a Research Participant's Genomic Results to Relatives: Analysis and Recommendations
Published in
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, January 2021
DOI 10.1111/jlme.12288
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan M. Wolf, Rebecca Branum, Barbara A. Koenig, Gloria M. Petersen, Susan A. Berry, Laura M. Beskow, Mary B. Daly, Conrad V. Fernandez, Robert C. Green, Bonnie S. LeRoy, Noralane M. Lindor, P. Pearl O'Rourke, Carmen Radecki Breitkopf, Mark A. Rothstein, Brian Van Ness, Benjamin S. Wilfond

Abstract

Genomic research results and incidental findings with health implications for a research participant are of potential interest not only to the participant, but also to the participant's family. Yet investigators lack guidance on return of results to relatives, including after the participant's death. In this paper, a national working group offers consensus analysis and recommendations, including an ethical framework to guide investigators in managing this challenging issue, before and after the participant's death.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Korea, Republic of 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 95 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 20%
Student > Bachelor 19 19%
Researcher 15 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Professor 8 8%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 12 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 23%
Social Sciences 13 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 9%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 15 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 26 December 2019.
All research outputs
#782,364
of 16,663,134 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
#49
of 977 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,183
of 287,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
#1
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,663,134 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 977 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
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 287,395 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.