↓ Skip to main content

“Losing the tombola”: a case study describing the use of community consultation in designing the study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of a mental health intervention in two conflict-affecte…

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
“Losing the tombola”: a case study describing the use of community consultation in designing the study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of a mental health intervention in two conflict-affected regions
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12910-015-0032-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leslie Shanks, Claudio Moroni, Isabel Cristina Rivera, Debbie Price, Sifa Banzira Clementine, Giovanni Pintaldi

Abstract

Community consultation is increasingly recommended, and in some cases, required by ethical review boards for research that involves higher levels of ethical risk such as international research and research with vulnerable populations. In designing a randomised control trial of a mental health intervention using a wait list control, we consulted the community where the research would be undertaken prior to finalising the study protocol. The study sites were two conflict-affected locations: Grozny in the Chechen Republic and Kitchanga in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Group discussions with a range of community members were held in both study sites. Facilitators used a prepared set of questions to guide the discussions and to solicit feedback on the value of the research as well as on the study design. Specific questions were asked about enablers and barriers to participation in the research. Six groups were held in Grozny and thirteen in Kitchanga. The majority of individuals and groups consulted supported the research, and understood the purpose. In Grozny, the main concern raised was the length of the waiting period. Barriers to both waiting and returning for follow up were identified. In Kitchanga, there was a strong reaction against the wait list control and against randomisation. The consultations provided information on unanticipated harms to the community, allowing changes to the study design to mitigate these harms and increase acceptability of the study. It also served to inform the community of the study, and through engaging with them early, helped promote legitimacy and joint responsibility. Community consultation prior to finalising the study design for a mental health intervention trial in two humanitarian settings proved feasible. Our experience reinforces the importance of community consultation before the study design is finalised and the importance of broad consultation that includes both community leaders and the potential study participants.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sierra Leone 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 21%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 15 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 17%
Social Sciences 6 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 15 32%
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 07 June 2015.
All research outputs
#17,758,791
of 22,808,725 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#878
of 993 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,586
of 267,792 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#19
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,808,725 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 993 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 267,792 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.