↓ Skip to main content

Ethical challenges in mental health research among internally displaced people: ethical theory and research implementation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 Mendeley
Title
Ethical challenges in mental health research among internally displaced people: ethical theory and research implementation
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6939-14-13
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chesmal Siriwardhana, Anushka Adikari, Kaushalya Jayaweera, Athula Sumathipala

Abstract

Millions of people undergo displacement in the world. Internally displaced people (IDP) are especially vulnerable as they are not protected by special legislation in contrast to other migrants. Research conducted among IDPs must be correspondingly sensitive in dealing with ethical issues that may arise. Muslim IDPs in Puttalam district in the North-Western province of Sri Lanka were initially displaced from Northern Sri Lanka due to the conflict in 1991. In the backdrop of a study exploring the prevalence of common mental disorders among the IDPs, researchers encountered various ethical challenges. These included inter-related issues of autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, confidentiality and informed consent, and how these were tailored in a culture-specific way to a population that has increased vulnerability. This paper analyses how these ethical issues were perceived, detected and managed by the researchers, and the role of ethics review committees in mental health research concerning IDPs. The relevance of guidelines and methodologies in the context of an atypical study population and the benefit versus risk potential of research for IDPs are also discussed. The limitations that were encountered while dealing with ethical challenges during the study are discussed. The concept of post-research ethical conduct audit is suggested to be considered as a potential step to minimize the exploitation of vulnerable populations such as IDPs in mental health research.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 127 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 23%
Researcher 17 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Student > Postgraduate 8 6%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 29 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 20%
Social Sciences 21 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 15%
Psychology 15 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 31 24%
Attention Score in Context

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 30 September 2013.
All research outputs
#20,203,867
of 22,723,682 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#944
of 990 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,518
of 195,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#11
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,723,682 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 990 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 195,550 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 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.