↓ Skip to main content

Eliciting meta consent for future secondary research use of health data using a smartphone application - a proof of concept study in the Danish population

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, August 2017
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)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Readers on

mendeley
72 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
Eliciting meta consent for future secondary research use of health data using a smartphone application - a proof of concept study in the Danish population
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12910-017-0209-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Ploug, Søren Holm

Abstract

The increased use of information technology in every day health care creates vast amounts of stored health data that can be used for research. The secondary research use of routinely collected data raises questions about appropriate consent mechanisms for such use. One option is meta consent where individuals state their own consent preferences in relation to future use of their data, e.g. whether they want the data to be accessible to researchers under conditions of specific consent, broad consent, blanket consent or not at all. This study investigates whether meta consent preferences can be successfully elicited by a smartphone application in the adult Danish population. A smartphone app was developed for the elicitation of meta consent preferences. An invitation to use the app was distributed to a stratified, representative sample of the Danish adult population. The meta consent choices, the use of the app, user experience data, and demographic data were logged and analysed statistically using IBM SPSS version 20. Of 1000 potential respondents 221 used the app. One hundred eighty-eight of the respondents were female and 103 male. The age range was 19 to 79 years with an average of 51 years (SD 16). Most users indicate 1) that they find the choices they are asked to make easy to understand (>75% find it 'Easy' or 'Very easy'), 2) that the application is easy to use (>75% find it 'Easy' or 'Very easy'), and 3) that this kind of choice should be offered to people (89% find it 'Absolutely' or 'Somewhat' important). It is possible to collect meta consent preferences in the general, adult population using a smartphone app.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 15%
Student > Master 5 7%
Unspecified 4 6%
Lecturer 3 4%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 27 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 7 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 8%
Psychology 6 8%
Philosophy 4 6%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 30 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 07 September 2017.
All research outputs
#4,352,358
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#444
of 1,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,992
of 318,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#5
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,009 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 318,304 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 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.