↓ Skip to main content

The ethics of community-based research with people who use drugs: results of a scoping review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, April 2016
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 (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
The ethics of community-based research with people who use drugs: results of a scoping review
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12910-016-0108-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rusty Souleymanov, Dario Kuzmanović, Zack Marshall, Ayden I. Scheim, Mikiki, Catherine Worthington, Margaret Millson

Abstract

Drug user networks and community-based organizations advocate for greater, meaningful involvement of people with lived experience of drug use in research, programs and services, and policy initiatives. Community-based approaches to research provide an opportunity to engage people who use drugs in all stages of the research process. Conducting community-based participatory research (CBPR) with people who use drugs has its own ethical challenges that are not necessarily acknowledged or supported by institutional ethics review boards. We conducted a scoping review to identify ethical issues in CBPR with people who use drugs that were documented in peer-reviewed and grey literature. The search strategy focused on three areas; community-based research, ethical issues, and drug use. Searches of five academic databases were conducted in addition to a grey literature search, hand-searching, and consultation with organizational partners and key stakeholders. Peer reviewed literature and community reports published in English between 1985 and 2013 were included, with initial screening conducted by two reviewers. The search strategy produced a total of 874 references. Twenty-five references met the inclusion criteria and were included in our thematic analysis. Five areas were identified as important to the ethics of CBPR with people who use drugs: 1) participant compensation, 2) drug user perspectives on CBPR, 3) peer recruitment and representation in CBPR, 4) capacity building, and 5) participation and inclusion in CBPR. We critically discuss implications of the emerging research in this field and provide suggestions for future research and practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 75 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 19%
Researcher 14 18%
Student > Master 14 18%
Librarian 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 9 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 24 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 12%
Psychology 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 13 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 05 March 2020.
All research outputs
#1,739,724
of 15,579,684 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#195
of 685 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,696
of 264,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,579,684 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 685 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 264,475 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them