ArticleJournal of community genetics2017
Engaging a state: Facebook comments on a large population biobank.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- How participation in deliberative engagement affects awareness of, and attitudes towards, genomics research and data sharing: evidence from rural Ghana.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Public engagement with genomics.Wellcome open research · 2023Review
- Engaging publics in biobanking and genetic research governance - a literature review towards informing practice in India.Wellcome open research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Scholarship on newborn screening, dried bloodspot retention, and large population biobanking call consistently for improved public engagement. Communication with participants likely occurs only in the context of collection, consent, or notification, if at all. We ran an 11-week advertising campaign to inform Michigan Facebook users unlikely to know that their or their children's dried bloodspots (DBSs) were stored in a state biobank. We investigated the pattern and content of comments posted during the campaign, focusing on users' questions, attitudes and concerns, and the role the moderator played in addressing them. We used Facebook data to quantitatively assess engagement and employed conventional content analysis to investigate themes, attitudes, and social dynamics among user and moderator comments. Five ad sets elicited comments during campaign weeks 4-8, reaching ∼800,000 Facebook users ($6000). Gravitating around broad, underlying ethical, legal, and social issues, 180 posts from 129 unique users related to newborn screening or biobanking. Thirty six conveyed negative attitudes and 33 conveyed positive attitudes; 53 posed questions. The most prevalent themes identified were consent, privacy, bloodspot use, identifiability, inclusion criteria, research benefits, (mis)trust, genetics, DBS destruction, awareness, and the role of government. The moderator's 81 posts were responsive-answering questions, correcting or clarifying information, or providing information about opting out. Facebook ad campaigns can improve engagement by pushing out relevant content and creating dynamic, responsive, visible forums for discussion. Reduced control over messaging may be worth the trade-off for creating accessible, transparent, people-centered engagement on public health issues that are sensitive and complex.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.