↓ Skip to main content

Predictors of consent to cell line creation and immortalisation in a South African schizophrenia genomics study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 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
Predictors of consent to cell line creation and immortalisation in a South African schizophrenia genomics study
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12910-018-0313-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Megan M. Campbell, Jantina de Vries, Sibonile G. Mqulwana, Michael M. Mndini, Odwa A. Ntola, Deborah Jonker, Megan Malan, Adele Pretorius, Zukiswa Zingela, Stephanus Van Wyk, Dan J. Stein, Ezra Susser

Abstract

Cell line immortalisation is a growing component of African genomics research and biobanking. However, little is known about the factors influencing consent to cell line creation and immortalisation in African research settings. We contribute to addressing this gap by exploring three questions in a sample of Xhosa participants recruited for a South African psychiatric genomics study: First, what proportion of participants consented to cell line storage? Second, what were predictors of this consent? Third, what questions were raised by participants during this consent process? 760 Xhose people with schizophrenia and 760 controls were matched to sex, age, level of education and recruitment region. We used descriptive statistics to determine the proportion of participants who consented to cell line creation and immortalization. Logistic regression methods were used to examine the predictors of consent. Reflections from study recruiters were elicited and discussed to identify key questions raised by participants about consent. Approximately 40% of participants consented to cell line storage. The recruiter who sought consent was a strong predictor of participant's consent. Participants recruited from the South African Eastern Cape (as opposed to the Western Cape), and older participants (aged between 40 and 59 years), were more likely to consent; both these groups were more likely to hold traditional Xhosa values. Neither illness (schizophrenia vs control) nor education (primary vs secondary school) were significant predictors of consent. Key questions raised by participants included two broad themes: clarification of what cell immortalisation means, and issues around individual and community benefit. These findings provide guidance on the proportion of participants likely to consent to cell line immortalisation in genomics research in Africa, and reinforce the important and influential role that study recruiters play during seeking of this consent. Our results reinforce the cultural and contextual factors underpinning consent choices, particularly around sharing and reciprocity. Finally, these results provide support for the growing literature challenging the stigmatizing perception that people with severe mental illness are overly vulnerable as a target group for heath research and specifically genomics studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 %
Researcher 8 16%
Student > Master 5 10%
Other 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 19 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 16%
Social Sciences 5 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 6%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 20 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 13 July 2018.
All research outputs
#15,866,607
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#831
of 1,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,187
of 327,693 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#31
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,016 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 327,693 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.