↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating community engagement in global health research: the need for metrics

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
126 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
190 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
Evaluating community engagement in global health research: the need for metrics
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12910-015-0033-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathleen M. MacQueen, Anant Bhan, Janet Frohlich, Jessica Holzer, Jeremy Sugarman, the Ethics Working Group of the HIV Prevention Trials Network

Abstract

Community engagement in research has gained momentum as an approach to improving research, to helping ensure that community concerns are taken into account, and to informing ethical decision-making when research is conducted in contexts of vulnerability. However, guidelines and scholarship regarding community engagement are arguably unsettled, making it difficult to implement and evaluate. We describe normative guidelines on community engagement that have been offered by national and international bodies in the context of HIV-related research, which set the stage for similar work in other health related research. Next, we review the scholarly literature regarding community engagement, outlining the diverse ethical goals ascribed to it. We then discuss practical guidelines that have been issued regarding community engagement. There is a lack of consensus regarding the ethical goals and approaches for community engagement, and an associated lack of indicators and metrics for evaluating success in achieving stated goals. To address these gaps we outline a framework for developing indicators for evaluating the contribution of community engagement to ethical goals in health research. There is a critical need to enhance efforts in evaluating community engagement to ensure that the work on the ground reflects the intentions expressed in the guidelines, and to investigate the contribution of specific community engagement practices for making research responsive to community needs and concerns. Evaluation mechanisms should be built into community engagement practices to guide best practices in community engagement and their replication across diverse health research settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users 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 190 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
New Zealand 1 <1%
Sierra Leone 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 187 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 21%
Researcher 33 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 5%
Other 37 19%
Unknown 38 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 19%
Social Sciences 33 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 9%
Psychology 9 5%
Philosophy 7 4%
Other 43 23%
Unknown 44 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 26 May 2023.
All research outputs
#2,643,727
of 25,011,749 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#275
of 1,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,362
of 268,843 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#2
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,011,749 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,084 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 268,843 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.