↓ Skip to main content

Developing the ethics of implementation research in health

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, December 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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
31 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
197 Mendeley
Title
Developing the ethics of implementation research in health
Published in
Implementation Science, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13012-016-0527-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vijayaprasad Gopichandran, Valerie A. Luyckx, Nikola Biller-Andorno, Amy Fairchild, Jerome Singh, Nhan Tran, Abha Saxena, Pascal Launois, Andreas Reis, Dermot Maher, Mahnaz Vahedi

Abstract

Implementation research (IR) is growing in recognition as an important generator of practical knowledge that can be translated into health policy. With its aim to answer questions about how to improve access to interventions that have been shown to work but have not reached many of the people who could benefit from them, IR involves a range of particular ethical considerations that have not yet been comprehensively covered in international guidelines on health research ethics. The fundamental ethical principles governing clinical research apply equally in IR, but the application of these principles may differ depending on the IR question, context, and the nature of the proposed intervention. IR questions cover a broad range of topics that focus on improving health system functioning and improving equitable and just access to effective health care interventions. As such, IR designs are flexible and often innovative, and ethical principles cannot simply be extrapolated from their applications in clinical research. Meaningful engagement with all stakeholders including communities and research participants is a fundamental ethical requirement that cuts across all study phases of IR and links most ethical concerns. Careful modification of the informed consent process may be required in IR to permit study of a needed intervention. The risks associated with IR may be difficult to anticipate and may be very context-specific. The benefits of IR may not accrue to the same groups who participate in the research, therefore justifying the risks versus benefits of IR may be ethically challenging. The expectation that knowledge generated through IR should be rapidly translated into health policy and practice necessitates up-front commitments from decision-makers to sustainability and scalability of effective interventions. Greater awareness of the particular ethical implications of the features of IR is urgently needed to facilitate optimal ethical conduct of IR and uniform ethical review.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 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 197 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Sierra Leone 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 193 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 17%
Researcher 31 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 12%
Other 13 7%
Student > Bachelor 8 4%
Other 36 18%
Unknown 51 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 20%
Social Sciences 26 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 12%
Psychology 12 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Other 26 13%
Unknown 61 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 07 February 2023.
All research outputs
#1,714,489
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#309
of 1,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,272
of 426,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#7
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,822 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 426,388 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.