↓ Skip to main content

Conducting a large, multi-site survey about patients’ views on broad consent: challenges and solutions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 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
Conducting a large, multi-site survey about patients’ views on broad consent: challenges and solutions
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0263-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maureen E. Smith, Saskia C. Sanderson, Kyle B. Brothers, Melanie F. Myers, Jennifer McCormick, Sharon Aufox, Martha J. Shrubsole, Nanibaá A. Garrison, Nathaniel D. Mercaldo, Jonathan S. Schildcrout, Ellen Wright Clayton, Armand H. Matheny Antommaria, Melissa Basford, Murray Brilliant, John J. Connolly, Stephanie M. Fullerton, Carol R. Horowitz, Gail P. Jarvik, Dave Kaufman, Terri Kitchner, Rongling Li, Evette J. Ludman, Catherine McCarty, Valerie McManus, Sarah Stallings, Janet L. Williams, Ingrid A. Holm

Abstract

As biobanks play an increasing role in the genomic research that will lead to precision medicine, input from diverse and large populations of patients in a variety of health care settings will be important in order to successfully carry out such studies. One important topic is participants' views towards consent and data sharing, especially since the 2011 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), and subsequently the 2015 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) were issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). These notices required that participants consent to research uses of their de-identified tissue samples and most clinical data, and allowing such consent be obtained in a one-time, open-ended or "broad" fashion. Conducting a survey across multiple sites provides clear advantages to either a single site survey or using a large online database, and is a potentially powerful way of understanding the views of diverse populations on this topic. A workgroup of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network, a national consortium of 9 sites (13 separate institutions, 11 clinical centers) supported by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) that combines DNA biorepositories with electronic medical record (EMR) systems for large-scale genetic research, conducted a survey to understand patients' views on consent, sample and data sharing for future research, biobank governance, data protection, and return of research results. Working across 9 sites to design and conduct a national survey presented challenges in organization, meeting human subjects guidelines at each institution, and survey development and implementation. The challenges were met through a committee structure to address each aspect of the project with representatives from all sites. Each committee's output was integrated into the overall survey plan. A number of site-specific issues were successfully managed allowing the survey to be developed and implemented uniformly across 11 clinical centers. Conducting a survey across a number of institutions with different cultures and practices is a methodological and logistical challenge. With a clear infrastructure, collaborative attitudes, excellent lines of communication, and the right expertise, this can be accomplished successfully.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 101 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 16%
Student > Master 16 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Other 6 6%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 33 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 21%
Social Sciences 11 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 10%
Psychology 6 6%
Computer Science 4 4%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 33 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 02 December 2016.
All research outputs
#14,817,801
of 24,835,287 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,417
of 2,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,920
of 426,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#21
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,835,287 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,215 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 426,064 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.