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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Practice variation across consent templates for biobank research. a survey of German biobanks
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Genetics, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fgene.2013.00240 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Irene Hirschberg, Hannes Knüppel, Daniel Strech |
| Abstract |
Introduction: Informed, voluntary, and valid consent from biomaterial donors is a precondition for biobank research. Valid consent protects donors' rights and helps maintain public trust in biobank research. Harmonization of consent procedures in biobank research is needed, because of the widely shared vision on national and international networking of biobanks including data and sample sharing. So far, no study has assessed and compared the content of current consent forms especially for biobank research. The objective of this study was to perform a content analysis of consent forms in German biobanks. Methods: Based on ten guidelines for biomedical research, we developed an assessment matrix with 41 content issues that are potentially relevant for consent forms in biobank research. This assessment matrix was applied in a thematic text analysis to 30 consent documents of German biobanks identified via the German Biobank Registry in July 2012. Results: Coverage of the 41 items in the assessed consent forms varied widely. For example, the items "Right to withdraw consent (without disadvantage)," "Policy for genetic information/consent to genetic analyzes" and "International cooperation/transborder use" were addressed in 97, 40, and 23% of all 30 consent forms respectively. The number of items covered by a single consent form ranged from 9 to 36 (22-88% out of 41 items). Discussion: Our findings serve as a starting point to reflect upon the spectrum of consent issues that must be addressed in biobank research. The findings show that the majority of consent forms for German biobanks, if not all, should be improved and harmonized to better support an informed and balanced choice of potential donors and to facilitate networking of biobanks. Best practice models for consent forms in biobank research should be developed and biobank operators need to be more aware of relevant consent issues. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 14% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 5 | 71% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Egypt | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 27 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 28% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Unknown | 6 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 24% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 7% |
| Psychology | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 7 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 17 November 2013.
All research outputs
#6,264,335
of 22,731,677 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#1,864
of 11,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,192
of 280,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#79
of 319 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,731,677 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,757 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 280,769 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 319 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 74% of its contemporaries.