↓ Skip to main content

Engaging research participants to inform the ethical conduct of mobile imaging, pervasive sensing, and location tracking research

Overview of attention for article published in Translational Behavioral Medicine, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 Mendeley
Title
Engaging research participants to inform the ethical conduct of mobile imaging, pervasive sensing, and location tracking research
Published in
Translational Behavioral Medicine, September 2016
DOI 10.1007/s13142-016-0426-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Camille Nebeker, Tiffany Lagare, Michelle Takemoto, Brittany Lewars, Katie Crist, Cinnamon S. Bloss, Jacqueline Kerr

Abstract

Researchers utilize mobile imaging, pervasive sensing, social media, and location tracking (MISST) technologies to observe and intervene with participants in their natural environment. The use of MISST methods and tools introduces unique ethical issues due to the type and quantity of data, and produces raising new challenges around informed consent, risk assessment, and data management. Since MISST methods are relatively new in behavioral research, there is little documented evidence to guide institutional review board (IRB) risk assessment and inform appropriate risk management strategies. This study was conducted to contribute the participant perspectives when considering ethical and responsible practices. Participants (n = 82) enrolled in an observational study where they wore several MISST devices for 1 week completed an exit survey. Survey items focused on the following: 1-device comfort, 2-informed consent, 3-privacy protections, and 4-bystander engagement. The informed consent process reflected participant actual experience. Device comfort and privacy were raised as concerns to both the participants and bystanders. While the majority of the participants reported a positive experience, it is important to note that the participants were volunteers who were not mandated to wear tracking devices and that persons who are mandated may not have a similar response. Findings support strategies proposed in the Kelly et al. (2013) ethical framework, which emphasizes procedures to improve informed consent, protect privacy, manage data, and respect bystander rights when using a wearable camera.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 136 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 18%
Student > Master 22 16%
Researcher 16 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Student > Bachelor 9 6%
Other 25 18%
Unknown 34 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 19 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 12%
Social Sciences 16 11%
Psychology 15 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 6%
Other 22 16%
Unknown 43 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 20 January 2020.
All research outputs
#2,193,232
of 22,890,496 outputs
Outputs from Translational Behavioral Medicine
#138
of 991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,190
of 322,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Translational Behavioral Medicine
#3
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,890,496 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 991 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 322,600 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.