↓ Skip to main content

Informed consent: are researchers accurately representing risks and benefits?

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
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.
Title
Informed consent: are researchers accurately representing risks and benefits?
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, February 2012
DOI 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2012.00978.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathy Ahern

Abstract

Changes in the scope of health research in the last 50 years require evidence to support assumptions about what constitutes harm and benefit to research participants. The aim of this study was to investigate the actual benefits and harm individuals experienced while participating in potentially distressing qualitative research. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews and subjected to thematic analysis. Five themes emerged: (i) motivation to participate, (ii) expectations of participation, (iii) sources of harm, (iv) mitigating harm and (v) benefits of participation. Results indicated that all participants benefited through participation in the qualitative research. Most participants also reported varying degrees of distress during the interviews, but did not consider this harmful. In contrast, dissemination of the findings did constitute an unexpected source of potential harm for the participants and researcher. It is concluded that for these participants, distress during qualitative interviewing is not in itself harmful, and that participant information sheets need to reflect the harms and benefits of participation more accurately in a user-friendly format. Furthermore, the sensitivity with which research is disseminated needs to be considered as a fundamental protection for participants from unwarranted criticism by third parties. Recommendations include that researchers conducting interviews have specific personal and professional attributes relevant to the participant group, and that transcripts/raw data should not be sent automatically to participants.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 43 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 26%
Student > Master 8 17%
Student > Bachelor 8 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Researcher 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 4 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 13 28%
Social Sciences 10 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 13%
Psychology 4 9%
Computer Science 3 7%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 4 9%
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 17 November 2013.
All research outputs
#16,801,619
of 24,712,008 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences
#539
of 823 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,226
of 159,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences
#7
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,712,008 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 823 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 159,617 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.