↓ Skip to main content

Innovations in research ethics governance in humanitarian settings

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 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
Innovations in research ethics governance in humanitarian settings
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12910-015-0002-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Doris Schopper, Angus Dawson, Ross Upshur, Aasim Ahmad, Amar Jesani, Raffaella Ravinetto, Michael J Segelid, Sunita Sheel, Jerome Singh

Abstract

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) is one of the world's leading humanitarian medical organizations. The increased emphasis in MSF on research led to the creation of an ethics review board (ERB) in 2001. The ERB has encouraged innovation in the review of proposals and the interaction between the ERB and the organization. This has led to some of the advances in ethics governance described in this paper. We first update our previous work from 2009 describing ERB performance and then highlight five innovative practices: • A new framework to guide ethics review • The introduction of a policy exempting a posteriori analysis of routinely collected data • The preapproval of "emergency" protocols • General ethical approval of "routine surveys" • Evaluating the impact of approved studies The new framework encourages a conversation about ethical issues, rather than imposing quasi-legalistic rules, is more engaged with the specific MSF research context and gives greater prominence to certain values and principles. Some of the innovations implemented by the ERB, such as review exemption or approval of generic protocols, may run counter to many standard operating procedures. We argue that much standard practice in research ethics review ought to be open to challenge and revision. Continued interaction between MSF researchers and independent ERB members has allowed for progressive innovations based on a trustful and respectful partnership between the ERB and the researchers. In the future, three areas merit particular attention. First, the impact of the new framework should be assessed. Second, the impact of research needs to be defined more precisely as a first step towards being meaningfully assessed, including changes of impact over time. Finally, the dialogue between the MSF ERB and the ethics committees in the study countries should be enhanced. We hope that the innovations in research ethics governance described may be relevant for other organisations carrying out research in fragile contexts and for ethics committees reviewing such research.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 78 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 25%
Student > Master 13 16%
Other 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 11 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 24%
Social Sciences 11 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 10%
Philosophy 6 8%
Arts and Humanities 6 8%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 17 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 2017.
All research outputs
#2,866,125
of 12,070,876 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#246
of 505 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,876
of 217,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#7
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,070,876 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 505 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 217,728 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 74% of its contemporaries.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.