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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
"It's for a good cause, isn't it?" - Exploring views of South African TB research participants on sample storage and re-use
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, July 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-13-19 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gerrit van Schalkwyk, Jantina de Vries, Keymanthri Moodley |
| Abstract |
The banking of biological samples raises a number of ethical issues in relation to the storage, export and re-use of samples. Whilst there is a growing body of literature exploring participant perspectives in North America and Europe, hardly any studies have been reported in Africa. This is problematic in particular in light of the growing amount of research taking place in Africa, and with the rise of biobanking practices also on the African continent. In order to investigate the perspectives of African research participants, we conducted a study with research participants in a TB study in the Western Cape, South Africa. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| India | 1 | 2% |
| South Africa | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 60 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 23 | 37% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 8 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 27% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 17% |
| Unknown | 11 | 17% |
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 28 July 2012.
All research outputs
#20,161,674
of 22,671,366 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#942
of 988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,481
of 164,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#10
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,671,366 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 988 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 164,635 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.