↓ Skip to main content

Self-tests for influenza: an empirical ethics investigation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Self-tests for influenza: an empirical ethics investigation
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12910-017-0192-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benedict Rumbold, Clare Wenham, James Wilson

Abstract

In this article we aim to assess the ethical desirability of self-test diagnostic kits for influenza, focusing in particular on the potential benefits and challenges posed by a new, mobile phone-based tool currently being developed by i-sense, an interdisciplinary research collaboration based (primarily) at University College London and funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. Our study adopts an empirical ethics approach, supplementing an initial review into the ethical considerations posed by such technologies with qualitative data from three focus groups. Overall, we map a range of possible considerations both for and against the use of such technologies, synthesizing evidence from a range of secondary literature, as well as identifying several new considerations previously overlooked. We argue that no single consideration marks these technologies as either entirely permissible or impermissible but rather tools which have the potential to incur certain costs and benefits, and that context is important in determining these. In the latter stages of the article, we explain how developers of such technologies might seek to mitigate such costs and reflect on the possible limitations of the empirical ethics method brought out during the study. Not applicable.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 28%
Student > Master 5 17%
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Librarian 2 7%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 4 14%
Psychology 4 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 10%
Engineering 3 10%
Computer Science 3 10%
Other 9 31%
Unknown 3 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 25 August 2017.
All research outputs
#2,998,988
of 11,655,615 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#261
of 497 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,907
of 267,292 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#13
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,655,615 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 497 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 267,292 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.