↓ Skip to main content

Attitudes of the Japanese public and doctors towards use of archived information and samples without informed consent: Preliminary findings based on focus group interviews

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, January 2002
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
Attitudes of the Japanese public and doctors towards use of archived information and samples without informed consent: Preliminary findings based on focus group interviews
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, January 2002
DOI 10.1186/1472-6939-3-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Atsushi Asai, Motoki Ohnishi, Etsuyo Nishigaki, Miho Sekimoto, Shunichi Fukuhara, Tsuguya Fukui

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore laypersons' attitudes toward the use of archived (existing) materials such as medical records and biological samples and to compare them with the attitudes of physicians who are involved in medical research. Three focus group interviews were conducted, in which seven Japanese male members of the general public, seven female members of the general public and seven physicians participated. It was revealed that the lay public expressed diverse attitudes towards the use of archived information and samples without informed consent. Protecting a subject's privacy, maintaining confidentiality, and communicating the outcomes of studies to research subjects were regarded as essential preconditions if researchers were to have access to archived information and samples used for research without the specific informed consent of the subjects who provided the material. Although participating physicians thought that some kind of prior permission from subjects was desirable, they pointed out the difficulties involved in obtaining individual informed consent in each case. The present preliminary study indicates that the lay public and medical professionals may have different attitudes towards the use of archived information and samples without specific informed consent. This hypothesis, however, is derived from our focus groups interviews, and requires validation through research using a larger sample.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Unknown 74 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Master 7 9%
Professor 5 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 5%
Student > Bachelor 3 4%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 39 51%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 14%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 45 59%
Attention Score in Context

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 29 August 2019.
All research outputs
#7,668,752
of 23,342,092 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#636
of 1,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,173
of 124,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,092 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,015 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 124,444 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them