↓ Skip to main content

Research ethics review at University Eduardo Mondlane (UEM)/Maputo Central Hospital, Mozambique (2013–2016): a descriptive analysis of the start-up of a new research ethics committee (REC)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, May 2018
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 (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Research ethics review at University Eduardo Mondlane (UEM)/Maputo Central Hospital, Mozambique (2013–2016): a descriptive analysis of the start-up of a new research ethics committee (REC)
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12910-018-0291-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jahit Sacarlal, Vasco Muchanga, Carlos Mabutana, Matilde Mabui, Arlete Mariamo, Assa Júlio Cuamba, Leida Artur Fumo, Jacinta Silveira, Elizabeth Heitman, Troy D. Moon

Abstract

Mozambique has seen remarkable growth in biomedical research over the last decade. To meet a growing need, the National Committee for Bioethics in Health of Mozambique (CNBS) encouraged the development of ethical review processes at institutions that regularly conduct medical and social science research. In 2012, the Faculty of Medicine (FM) of University Eduardo Mondlane (UEM) and the Maputo Central Hospital (MCH) established a joint Institutional Committee on Bioethics for Health (CIBS FM & MCH). This study examines the experience of the first 4 years of the CIBS FM & MCH. This study provides a descriptive, retrospective analysis of research protocols submitted to and approved by the CIBS FM & MCH between March 1, 2013 and December 31, 2016, together with an analysis of the Committee's respective reviews and actions. A total of 356 protocols were submitted for review during the period under analysis, with 309 protocols approved. Sixty-four percent were submitted by students, faculty, and researchers from UEM, mainly related to Master's degree research (42%). Descriptive cross-sectional studies were the most frequently reviewed research (61%). The majority were prospective (71%) and used quantitative methodologies (51%). The Departments of Internal Medicine at MCH and Community Health at the FM submitted the most protocols from their respective institutions, with 38 and 53% respectively. The CIBS's average time to final approval for all protocols was 56 days, rising to 161 for the 40 protocols that required subsequent national-level review by the CNBS. Our results show that over its first 4 years, the CIBS FM & MCH has been successful in managing a constant demand for protocol review and that several broad quality improvement initiatives, such as investigator mentoring and an electronic protocol submission platform have improved efficiency in the review process and the overall quality of the protocols submitted. Beyond Maputo, long-term investments in training and ethical capacity building for CIBS across the country continue to be needed, as Mozambique develops greater capacity for research and makes progress toward improving the health of all its citizens.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Librarian 2 5%
Lecturer 2 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 19 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Psychology 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 21 49%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 08 August 2021.
All research outputs
#2,404,480
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#253
of 1,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,306
of 332,353 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#13
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 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 1,009 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 332,353 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 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 66% of its contemporaries.