↓ Skip to main content

Conducting a paediatric multi‐centre RCT with an industry partner: Challenges and lessons learned

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Paediatrics & Child Health, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
Conducting a paediatric multi‐centre RCT with an industry partner: Challenges and lessons learned
Published in
Journal of Paediatrics & Child Health, August 2012
DOI 10.1111/j.1440-1754.2012.02510.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jessica Maskell, Peter Newcombe, Graham Martin, Roy Kimble

Abstract

There are many benefits of multi-centred research including large sample sizes, statistical power, timely recruitment and generalisability of results. However, there are numerous considerations when planning and implementing a multi-centred study. This article reviews the challenges and successes of planning and implementing a multi-centred prospective randomised control trial involving an industry partner. The research investigated the impact on psychosocial functioning of a cosmetic camouflage product for children and adolescents with burn scarring. Multi-centred studies commonly have many stakeholders. Within this study, six Australian and New Zealand paediatric burn units as well as an industry partner were involved. The inclusion of an industry partner added complexities as they brought different priorities and expectations to the research. Further, multifaceted ethical and institutional approval processes needed to be negotiated. The challenges, successes, lessons learned and recommendations from this study regarding Australian and New Zealand ethics and research governance approval processes, collaboration with industry partners and the management of differing expectations will be outlined. Recommendations for future multi-centred research with industry partners include provision of regular written reports for the industry partner; continual monitoring and prompt resolution of concerns; basic research practices education for industry partners; minimisation of industry partner contact with participants; clear roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders and utilisation of single ethical review if available.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 40 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 24%
Student > Master 5 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Researcher 4 10%
Librarian 3 7%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 7 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 41%
Psychology 4 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 7 17%
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 08 November 2012.
All research outputs
#20,723,696
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Paediatrics & Child Health
#2,684
of 3,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,748
of 186,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Paediatrics & Child Health
#18
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,371 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 186,362 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.