↓ Skip to main content

Secondary consent to biospecimen use in a prostate cancer biorepository

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Secondary consent to biospecimen use in a prostate cancer biorepository
Published in
BMC Research Notes, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13104-016-2159-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bettina F. Drake, Katherine Brown, Lucy D’Agostino McGowan, Jennifer Haslag-Minoff, Kimberly Kaphingst

Abstract

Biorepository research has substantial societal benefits. This is one of the few studies to focus on male willingness to allow future research use of biospecimens. This study analyzed the future research consent questions from a prostate cancer biorepository study (N = 1931). The consent form asked two questions regarding use of samples in future studies (1) without and (2) with protected health information (PHI). Yes to both questions of use of samples was categorized as Yes-Always; Yes to without and No to with PHI was categorized as Yes-Conditional; No to without PHI was categorized as Never. We analyzed this outcome to determine significant predictors for consent to Yes-Always vs. Yes-Conditional. 99.33 % consented to future use of samples; 88.19 % consented to future use without PHI, and among those men 10.2 % consented to future use with PHI. Comparing Yes Always and Yes Conditional responses, bivariate analyses showed that race, family history, stage of cancer, and grade of cancer (Gleason), were significant at the α = 0.05 level. Using stepwise multivariable logistic regression, we found that African-American men were significantly more likely to respond Yes Always when compared to White men (p < 0.001). Those with a family history of prostate cancer were significantly more likely to respond Yes Always (p = 0.002). There is general willingness to consent to future use of specimens without PHI among men.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 6 23%
Researcher 5 19%
Student > Master 4 15%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Computer Science 2 8%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 6 23%
Attention Score in Context

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 19 February 2017.
All research outputs
#5,905,662
of 22,881,154 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#880
of 4,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,466
of 363,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#25
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,154 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,269 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 363,150 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 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 70% of its contemporaries.