↓ Skip to main content

Using qualitative research methods in biomedical innovation: the case of cultured red blood cells for transfusion

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Using qualitative research methods in biomedical innovation: the case of cultured red blood cells for transfusion
Published in
BMC Research Notes, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13104-016-2077-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catherine Lyall, Emma King

Abstract

Qualitative research has a key role to play in biomedical innovation projects. This article focuses on the appropriate use of robust social science methodologies (primarily focus group studies) for identifying the public's willingness and preference for emerging medical technologies. Our study was part of the BloodPharma project (now known as the Novosang project) to deliver industrially generated red blood cells for transfusion. Previous work on blood substitutes shows that the public prefers donated human blood. However, no research has been conducted concerning attitudes to stem cell derived red blood cells. Qualitative research methods including interviews and focus groups provide the methodological context for this paper. Focus groups were used to elicit views from sub-sections of the UK population about the potential use of such cultured red blood cells. We reflect on the appropriateness of that methodology in the context of the BloodPharma project. Findings are in the form of lessons transferable to other interdisciplinary, science-led teams about what a social science dimension can bring; why qualitative research should be included; and how it can be used effectively. Qualitative data collection offers the strength of exploring ambivalence and investigating the reasons for views, but not necessarily their prevalence in wider society. The inherent value of a qualitative method, such as focus groups, therefore lies in its ability to uncover new information. This contrasts with a quantitative approach to simply 'measuring' public opinion on a topic about which participants may have little prior knowledge. We discuss a number of challenges including: appropriate roles for embedded social scientists and the intricacies of doing upstream engagement as well as some of the design issues and limitations associated with the focus group method.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 23%
Student > Bachelor 8 21%
Researcher 6 15%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 2 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 9 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 21%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 5%
Other 10 26%
Unknown 4 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 16 June 2021.
All research outputs
#11,254,415
of 19,734,181 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,437
of 3,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,555
of 276,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,734,181 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,929 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. 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 276,320 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them