↓ Skip to main content

Research with adolescents who engage in non-suicidal self-injury: ethical considerations and challenges

Overview of attention for article published in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, September 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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
164 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 with adolescents who engage in non-suicidal self-injury: ethical considerations and challenges
Published in
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13034-015-0071-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth E Lloyd-Richardson, Stephen P Lewis, Janis L Whitlock, Karen Rodham, Heather T Schatten

Abstract

Non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) has emerged as a significant psychiatric issue among youth. In addition to its high prevalence rates, NSSI is associated with a number of psychiatric issues and confers risk for varying degrees of physical injury. It is also a risk factor for attempted suicide. Thus, youth who engage in NSSI represent a vulnerable and high-risk population and researchers are likely to encounter a variety of ethical challenges when conducting NSSI research. Accordingly, it is critical that researchers be familiar with the major ethical issues involved in NSSI research and how to effectively account for and address them. This is important both prior to obtaining clearance from their Institutional Review Boards and when carrying out their research. To date, there is no consolidated resource to delineate the ethical challenges inherent to NSSI research and how these can be effectively navigated throughout the research process. The goals of this paper are to review international best practices in NSSI research across the various contexts within which it is studied, to offer guidelines for managing these issues, to identify areas in which variation in approaches prohibits decisive recommendations, and to generate questions in need of further consideration among scholars in this field.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 164 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 13%
Student > Bachelor 22 13%
Researcher 16 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Other 24 15%
Unknown 42 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 68 41%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 13%
Social Sciences 10 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 3%
Arts and Humanities 4 2%
Other 16 10%
Unknown 40 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 19 July 2018.
All research outputs
#2,049,123
of 25,260,058 outputs
Outputs from Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health
#85
of 775 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,646
of 281,265 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health
#5
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,260,058 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 775 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 281,265 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.