| Title |
Examining the ethical and social issues of health technology design through the public appraisal of prospective scenarios: a study protocol describing a multimedia-based deliberative method
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1748-5908-9-81 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pascale Lehoux, Philippe Gauthier, Bryn Williams-Jones, Fiona A Miller, Jennifer R Fishman, Myriam Hivon, Patrick Vachon |
| Abstract |
The design of health technologies relies on assumptions that affect how they will be implemented, such as intended use, complexity, impact on user autonomy, and appropriateness. Those who design and implement technologies make several ethical and social assumptions on behalf of users and society more broadly, but there are very few tools to examine prospectively whether such assumptions are warranted and how the public define and appraise the desirability of health innovations. This study protocol describes a three-year study that relies on a multimedia-based prospective method to support public deliberations that will enable a critical examination of the social and ethical issues of health technology design. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 108 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 13% |
| Researcher | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 21 | 19% |
| Unknown | 35 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 19 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 13% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 8 | 7% |
| Engineering | 6 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 20 | 18% |
| Unknown | 38 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 23 July 2014.
All research outputs
#6,721,390
of 22,757,541 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,129
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,346
of 228,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#23
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,757,541 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 228,424 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.