↓ Skip to main content

Biobanking from the patient perspective

Overview of attention for article published in Research Involvement and Engagement, June 2015
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 (91st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
15 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 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
Biobanking from the patient perspective
Published in
Research Involvement and Engagement, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40900-015-0001-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Derick Mitchell, Jan Geissler, Alison Parry-Jones, Hans Keulen, Doris C. Schmitt, Rosaria Vavassori, Balwir Matharoo-Ball

Abstract

Biobanks are collections of donations of biological material (DNA, cells, tissue etc.) and related data which are very valuable for research into human diseases. A variety of biobanks exist for example within hospitals, research institutes, pharmaceutical companies and patient organisations. The role of patients in biobanking is changing from being seen simply as donors, to actual collaborators in the design, development and the running of biobanks. In this article, we provide a number of examples of patients acting as partners at the heart of biobanking, where their voice and perspective is being seen and used as a valuable resource for the biobank. Our aim is that these examples can be used by those who work with patients in biobank-based research, to design future strategies for patient and public involvement in all biobanks. Biobanks and biobanking research plays an increasingly important role in healthcare research and delivery as health systems become more patient-centred and medicine becomes more personalised. There is also growing acceptance and appreciation of the value that patients, patient advocacy organisations and the public can bring as stakeholders in biobanking and more generally in research. Therefore, the importance of active, early and sustained engagement and involvement of patient and public representatives in biobanks will become increasingly relevant. Organising and facilitating patient and public involvement in biobanking takes considerable time and effort for all stakeholders involved. Therefore, for any biobank operator considering involving patients and the public in their biobanking activities, consideration of best practices, current guidance, ethical issues and evaluation of involvement will be important. In this article, we demonstrate that patients are much more than donors to biobanks-they are collaborators at the heart of biobanking with an important voice to identify perspective, which can be an extremely valuable resource for all biobanks to utilise. The case studies herein provide examples of good practice of patient involvement in biobanking as well as outcomes from these practices, and lessons learned. Our aim is to provide useful insights from these efforts and potential future strategies for the multiple stakeholders that work with patients and the public involved in biobank-based research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 106 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 16%
Student > Master 17 16%
Other 8 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 26 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 11%
Social Sciences 10 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Other 20 19%
Unknown 30 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 22 July 2023.
All research outputs
#1,890,890
of 25,192,722 outputs
Outputs from Research Involvement and Engagement
#176
of 496 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,111
of 269,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Involvement and Engagement
#6
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,192,722 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 496 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 269,722 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 2 of them.