↓ Skip to main content

At the cross-roads of participatory research and biomarker discovery in autism: the need for empirical data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 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
At the cross-roads of participatory research and biomarker discovery in autism: the need for empirical data
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12910-015-0082-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Afiqah Yusuf, Mayada Elsabbagh

Abstract

Identifying biomarkers for autism can improve outcomes for those affected by autism. Engaging the diverse stakeholders in the research process using community-based participatory research (CBPR) can accelerate biomarker discovery into clinical applications. However, there are limited examples of stakeholder involvement in autism research, possibly due to conceptual and practical concerns. We evaluate the applicability of CBPR principles to biomarker discovery in autism and critically review empirical studies adopting these principles. Using a scoping review methodology, we identified and evaluated seven studies using CBPR principles in biomarker discovery. The limited number of studies in biomarker discovery adopting CBPR principles coupled with their methodological limitations suggests that such applications are feasible but challenging. These studies illustrate three CBPR themes: community assessment, setting global priorities, and collaboration in research design. We propose that further research using participatory principles would be useful in accelerating the pace of discovery and the development of clinically meaningful biomarkers. For this goal to be successful we advocate for increased attention to previously identified conceptual and methodological challenges to participatory approaches in health research, including improving scientific rigor and developing long-term partnerships among stakeholders.

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 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 1%
Argentina 1 1%
Unknown 84 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 21%
Researcher 16 19%
Student > Master 12 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 13 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 15%
Social Sciences 12 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 17 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 January 2016.
All research outputs
#15,303,845
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#808
of 993 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,877
of 390,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#19
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 390,233 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.