| Title |
Differences and structural weaknesses of institutional mechanisms for health research ethics: Burkina Faso, Palestine, Peru, and Democratic Republic of the Congo
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12910-018-0284-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
N’koué Emmanuel Sambiéni |
| Abstract |
Regardless of national contexts, the institutions responsible for research ethics, founded on international regulations, are all expected to be structured and to operate in a common way. Our experience with several countries on different continents, however, has raised questions in this regard. This article examines the differences and structural weaknesses of ethics committees in four countries (Burkina Faso, Palestine, Peru, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo) where we have conducted the same socio-anthropological study in the field of reproductive health. In addition to recording our observations during field surveys for this study, we performed a documentary review and interviewed expert members of ethics committees, research participants, and researchers who had experience with requesting ethics approvals for research protocols in the field of social sciences and health. The results of this study showed that, despite having the same mandate, the committees functioned differently, while they all exhibited the same weaknesses. Thus, the universalization and standardization of institutional conditions for applying ethical standards in research still present problems that are, at the very least, relevant. This study on ethics committees in four countries demonstrated the profound influence of context on the ways in which different institutions function and enforce regulations. In effect, in all social fields, every innovation is infused by its context. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 5% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 5% |
| Librarian | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 16 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 5 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Unknown | 17 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 22 June 2018.
All research outputs
#14,417,376
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#761
of 999 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,878
of 328,710 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#32
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 999 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 328,710 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.