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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
An implementation framework for the feedback of individual research results and incidental findings in research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-15-88 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Adrian Thorogood, Yann Joly, Bartha Maria Knoppers, Tommy Nilsson, Peter Metrakos, Anthoula Lazaris, Ayat Salman |
| Abstract |
This article outlines procedures for the feedback of individual research data to participants. This feedback framework was developed in the context of a personalized medicine research project in Canada. Researchers in this domain have an ethical obligation to return individual research results and/or material incidental findings that are clinically significant, valid and actionable to participants. Communication of individual research data must proceed in an ethical and efficient manner. Feedback involves three procedural steps: assessing the health relevance of a finding, re-identifying the affected participant, and communicating the finding. Re-identification requires researchers to break the code in place to protect participant identities. Coding systems replace personal identifiers with a numerical code. Double coding systems provide added privacy protection by separating research data from personal identifying data with a third "linkage" database. A trusted and independent intermediary, the "keyholder", controls access to this linkage database. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 3 | 19% |
| Germany | 1 | 6% |
| United States | 1 | 6% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 10 | 63% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 63% |
| Scientists | 4 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 76 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 19% |
| Researcher | 13 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Unknown | 19 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 5% |
| Philosophy | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 19 | 25% |
| Unknown | 22 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 21 February 2015.
All research outputs
#3,632,700
of 22,775,504 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#371
of 993 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,695
of 352,836 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#7
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,775,504 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 993 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 352,836 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 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 58% of its contemporaries.