| Title |
Human Subjects Protection and Technology in Prevention Science: Selected Opportunities and Challenges
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Prevention Science, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11121-016-0664-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anthony R. Pisani, Peter A. Wyman, David C. Mohr, Tatiana Perrino, Carlos Gallo, Juan Villamar, Kimberly Kendziora, George W. Howe, Zili Sloboda, C. Hendricks Brown |
| Abstract |
Internet-connected devices are changing the way people live, work, and relate to one another. For prevention scientists, technological advances create opportunities to promote the welfare of human subjects and society. The challenge is to obtain the benefits while minimizing risks. In this article, we use the guiding principles for ethical human subjects research and proposed changes to the Common Rule regulations, as a basis for discussing selected opportunities and challenges that new technologies present for prevention science. The benefits of conducting research with new populations, and at new levels of integration into participants' daily lives, are presented along with five challenges along with technological and other solutions to strengthen the protections that we provide: (1) achieving adequate informed consent with procedures that are acceptable to participants in a digital age; (2) balancing opportunities for rapid development and broad reach, with gaining adequate understanding of population needs; (3) integrating data collection and intervention into participants' lives while minimizing intrusiveness and fatigue; (4) setting appropriate expectations for responding to safety and suicide concerns; and (5) safeguarding newly available streams of sensitive data. Our goal is to promote collaboration between prevention scientists, institutional review boards, and community members to safely and ethically harness advancing technologies to strengthen impact of prevention science. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Germany | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 111 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 18% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 12% |
| Researcher | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 14% |
| Unknown | 33 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 27 | 24% |
| Social Sciences | 13 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 14 | 13% |
| Unknown | 39 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 18 July 2022.
All research outputs
#14,270,445
of 25,189,292 outputs
Outputs from Prevention Science
#663
of 1,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,551
of 341,919 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Prevention Science
#12
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,189,292 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,132 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 341,919 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.