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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A critique of the regulation of data science in healthcare research in the European Union
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12910-017-0184-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John M. M. Rumbold, Barbara K. Pierscionek |
| Abstract |
The EU offers a suitable milieu for the comparison and harmonisation of healthcare across different languages, cultures, and jurisdictions (albeit with a supranational legal framework), which could provide improvements in healthcare standards across the bloc. There are specific ethico-legal issues with the use of data in healthcare research that mandate a different approach from other forms of research. The use of healthcare data over a long period of time is similar to the use of tissue in biobanks. There is a low risk to subjects but it is impossible to gain specific informed consent given the future possibilities for research. Large amounts of data on a subject present a finite risk of re-identification. Consequently, there is a balancing act between this risk and retaining sufficient utility of the data. Anonymising methods need to take into account the circumstances of data sharing to enable an appropriate balance in all cases. There are ethical and policy advantages to exceeding the legal requirements and thereby securing the social licence for research. This process would require the examination and comparison of data protection laws across the trading bloc to produce an ethico-legal framework compatible with the requirements of all member states. Seven EU jurisdictions are given consideration in this critique. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | 17% |
| Ireland | 1 | 17% |
| Japan | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 130 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 28 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 15% |
| Researcher | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 12% |
| Unknown | 40 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 18 | 14% |
| Computer Science | 15 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 9 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 22 | 17% |
| Unknown | 46 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 14 July 2023.
All research outputs
#2,279,622
of 24,462,749 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#228
of 1,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,784
of 314,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#8
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,462,749 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,051 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 314,280 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 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 66% of its contemporaries.