↓ Skip to main content

“Let’s get the best quality research we can”: public awareness and acceptance of consent to use existing data in health research: a systematic review and qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
113 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
189 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
“Let’s get the best quality research we can”: public awareness and acceptance of consent to use existing data in health research: a systematic review and qualitative study
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-13-72
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth M Hill, Emma L Turner, Richard M Martin, Jenny L Donovan

Abstract

Opt-in consent is usually required for research, but is known to introduce selection bias. This is a particular problem for large scale epidemiological studies using only pre-collected health data. Most previous studies have shown that members of the public value opt-in consent and can perceive research without consent as an invasion of privacy. Past research has suggested that people are generally unaware of research processes and existing safeguards, and that education may increase the acceptability of research without prior informed consent, but this recommendation has not been formally evaluated. Our objectives were to determine the range of public opinion about the use of existing medical data for research and to explore views about consent to a secondary review of medical records for research. We also investigated the effect of the provision of detailed information about the potential effect of selection bias on public acceptability of the use of data for research.

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 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 6 3%
Spain 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 180 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 40 21%
Student > Master 32 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Student > Bachelor 9 5%
Other 22 12%
Unknown 45 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 26%
Social Sciences 38 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 7%
Psychology 8 4%
Computer Science 7 4%
Other 24 13%
Unknown 50 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 20 June 2020.
All research outputs
#5,516,545
of 22,711,645 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#773
of 2,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,247
of 197,505 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#9
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,645 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 197,505 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 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 60% of its contemporaries.