↓ Skip to main content

An evaluation of a data linkage training workshop for research ethics committees

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
An evaluation of a data linkage training workshop for research ethics committees
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12910-015-0007-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kate M Tan, Felicity S Flack, Natasha L Bear, Judy A Allen

Abstract

In Australia research projects proposing the use of linked data require approval by a Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC). A sound evaluation of the ethical issues involved requires understanding of the basic mechanics of data linkage, the associated benefits and risks, and the legal context in which it occurs. The rapidly increasing number of research projects utilising linked data in Australia has led to an urgent need for enhanced capacity of HRECs to review research applications involving this emerging research methodology. The training described in this article was designed to respond to an identified need among the data linkage units in the Australian Population Health Research Network (PHRN) and HREC members in Australia. Five one-day face to face workshops were delivered in the study period to a total of 98 participants. Participants in the workshops represented all six categories of HREC membership composition listed in the National Health and Medical Research Centres' (NHMRC) National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. Participants were assessed at three time points, prior to the training (T1), immediately after the training (T2) and 8 to 17 months after the training (T3). Ninety participants completed the pre and post questionnaires; 58 of them completed the deferred questionnaire. Participants reported significant improvements in levels of knowledge, understanding and skills in each of the eight areas evaluated. The training was beneficial for those with prior experience in the area of ethics and data linkage as well as those with no prior exposure. Our preliminary work in this area demonstrates that the provision of intensive face to face ethics training in data linkage is feasible and has a significant impact on participant's confidence in reviewing HREC applications.

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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 2 7%
Canada 1 4%
Unknown 24 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 26%
Student > Master 4 15%
Professor 3 11%
Lecturer 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 5 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 15%
Psychology 3 11%
Philosophy 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Computer Science 2 7%
Other 7 26%
Unknown 7 26%
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 06 March 2015.
All research outputs
#15,866,607
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#831
of 1,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,662
of 258,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#13
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,016 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 258,988 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.