↓ Skip to main content

Equitable Participation in Biobanks: The Risks and Benefits of a “Dynamic Consent” Approach

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 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
Equitable Participation in Biobanks: The Risks and Benefits of a “Dynamic Consent” Approach
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, September 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00253
Pubmed ID
Authors

Megan Prictor, Harriet J. A. Teare, Jane Kaye

Abstract

Participation in biobanks tends to favor certain groups-white, middle-class, more highly-educated-often to the exclusion of others, such as indigenous people, the socially-disadvantaged and the culturally and linguistically diverse. Barriers to participation, which include age, location, cultural sensitivities around human tissue, and issues of literacy and language, can influence the diversity of samples found in biobanks. This has implications for the generalizability of research findings from biobanks being able to be translated into the clinic. Dynamic Consent, which is a digital decision-support tool, could improve participants' recruitment to, and engagement with, biobanks over time and help to overcome some of the barriers to participation. However, there are also risks that it may deepen the "digital divide" by favoring those with knowledge and access to digital technologies, with the potential to decrease participant engagement in research. When applying a Dynamic Consent approach in biobanking, researchers should give particular attention to adaptations that can improve participant inclusivity, and evaluate the tool empirically, with a focus on equity-relevant outcome measures. This may help biobanks to fulfill their promise of enabling translational research that is relevant to all.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 13%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 4 4%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 39 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Philosophy 4 4%
Other 18 20%
Unknown 40 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 10 June 2021.
All research outputs
#3,554,103
of 26,352,912 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#1,786
of 14,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,297
of 349,564 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#27
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,352,912 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,712 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 349,564 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 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 71% of its contemporaries.