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 scoping review of reporting ‘Ethical Research Practices’ in research conducted among refugees and war-affected populations in the Arab world
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12910-018-0277-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jihad Makhoul, Rana F. Chehab, Zahraa Shaito, Abla M. Sibai |
| Abstract |
Ethical research conduct is a cornerstone of research practice particularly when research participants include vulnerable populations. This study mapped the extent of reporting ethical research practices in studies conducted among refugees and war-affected populations in the Arab World, and assessed variations by time, country of study, and study characteristics. An electronic search of eight databases resulted in 5668 unique records published between 2000 and 2013. Scoping review yielded 164 eligible articles for analyses. Ethical research practices, including obtaining institutional approval, access to the community/research site, and informed consent/assent from the research participants, were reported in 48.2, 54.9, and 53.7% of the publications, respectively. Institutional approval was significantly more likely to be reported when the research was biomedical in nature compared to public health and social (91.7% vs. 54.4 and 32.4%), when the study employed quantitative compared to qualitative or mixed methodologies (61.7% vs. 26.8 and 42.9%), and when the journal required a statement on ethical declarations (57.4% vs. 27.1%). Institutional approval was least likely to be reported in papers that were sole-authored (9.5%), when these did not mention a funding source (29.6%), or when published in national journals (0%). Similar results were obtained for access to the community site and for seeking informed consent/assent from study participants. The responsibility of inadequacies in adherence to ethical research conduct in crisis settings is born by a multitude of stakeholders including funding agencies, institutional research boards, researchers and international relief organizations involved in research, as well as journal editors, all of whom need to play a more proactive role for enhancing the practice of ethical research conduct in conflict settings. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 8 | 29% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 11% |
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| Palestine, State of | 1 | 4% |
| Belgium | 1 | 4% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| Gambia | 1 | 4% |
| Lithuania | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 10 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 18 | 64% |
| Scientists | 7 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 74 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 18% |
| Researcher | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 22 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Energy | 10 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 8% |
| Arts and Humanities | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Unknown | 26 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 09 January 2020.
All research outputs
#1,154,459
of 25,721,020 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#77
of 1,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,816
of 341,947 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#4
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,721,020 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,117 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 341,947 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.