↓ Skip to main content

Community perspectives on randomisation and fairness in a cluster randomised controlled trial in Zambia

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, December 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
8 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
Community perspectives on randomisation and fairness in a cluster randomised controlled trial in Zambia
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, December 2019
DOI 10.1186/s12910-019-0421-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maureen Mupeta Kombe, Joseph Mumba Zulu, Charles Michelo, Ingvild F. Sandøy

Abstract

One important ethical issue in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is randomisation. Relatively little is known about how participating individuals and communities understand and perceive central aspects of randomisation such as equality, fairness, transparency and accountability in community-based trials. The aim of this study was to understand and explore study communities' perspectives of the randomisation process in a cluster RCT in rural Zambia studying the effectiveness of different support packages for adolescent girls on early childbearing. In this explorative study, in-depth semi-structured interviews were carried out in 2018 with 14 individuals who took part in the randomisation process of the Research Initiative to Support the Empowerment of Girls (RISE) project in 2016 and two traditional leaders. Two of the districts where the trial is implemented were purposively selected. Interviews were audio recorded and fully transcribed. Data were analysed by coding and describing emergent themes. The understanding of the randomisation process varied. Some respondents understood that randomisation was conducted for research purposes, but most of them did not. They had trouble distinguishing research and aid. Generally, respondents perceived the randomisation process as transparent and fair. However, people thought that there should not have been a "lottery" because they wanted all schools to receive equal or balanced benefits of the interventions. Randomisation was misunderstood by most respondents. Perceived procedural fairness was easier to realize than substantive fairness. Researchers working on Cluster Randomised Controlled Trials (CRCTs) should consider carefully how to explain randomisation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 38%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 13%
Student > Postgraduate 1 13%
Unknown 3 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 13%
Unknown 3 38%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 January 2020.
All research outputs
#8,966,576
of 15,383,358 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#511
of 675 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#173,477
of 341,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#71
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,383,358 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 675 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 341,566 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.