↓ Skip to main content

Improving understanding in the research informed consent process: a systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
15 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
225 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
242 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Improving understanding in the research informed consent process: a systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, July 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6939-14-28
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adam Nishimura, Jantey Carey, Patricia J Erwin, Jon C Tilburt, M Hassan Murad, Jennifer B McCormick

Abstract

Obtaining informed consent is a cornerstone of biomedical research, yet participants comprehension of presented information is often low. The most effective interventions to improve understanding rates have not been identified.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 242 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 2%
Canada 2 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 233 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 66 27%
Researcher 37 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 14%
Student > Bachelor 24 10%
Other 16 7%
Other 44 18%
Unknown 21 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 83 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 12%
Social Sciences 23 10%
Psychology 18 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 5%
Other 40 17%
Unknown 38 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 31 October 2019.
All research outputs
#631,718
of 14,738,308 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#53
of 651 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,699
of 156,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,738,308 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 651 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
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 156,004 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them