↓ Skip to main content

Participatory improvement of a template for informed consent documents in biobank research - study results and methodological reflections

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
Participatory improvement of a template for informed consent documents in biobank research - study results and methodological reflections
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12910-017-0232-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sabine Bossert, Hannes Kahrass, Ulrike Heinemeyer, Jana Prokein, Daniel Strech

Abstract

For valid informed consent, it is crucial that patients or research participants fully understand all that their consent entails. Testing and revising informed consent documents with the assistance of their addressees can improve their understandability. In this study we aimed at further developing a method for testing and improving informed consent documents with regard to readability and test-readers' understanding and reactions. We tested, revised, and retested template informed consent documents for biobank research by means of 11 focus group interviews with members from the documents' target population. For the analysis of focus group excerpts we used qualitative content analysis. Revisions were made based on focus group feedback in an iterative process. Focus group participants gave substantial feedback on the original and on the revised version of the tested documents. Revisions included adding and clarifying explanations, including an info-box summarizing the main points of the text and an illustrative graphic. Our results indicate positive effects on the tested and revised informed consent documents in regard to general readability and test-readers' understanding and reactions. Participatory methods for improving informed consent should be more often applied and further evaluated for both, medical interventions and clinical research. Particular conceptual and methodological challenges need to be addressed in the future.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Researcher 8 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Master 3 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 21 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 14%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Philosophy 3 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 21 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 10 January 2018.
All research outputs
#2,970,897
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#316
of 1,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,552
of 445,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#10
of 23 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 87th 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 68% 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 445,215 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 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.