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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
Title |
Benefits and payments for research participants: Experiences and views from a research centre on the Kenyan coast
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, June 2012
|
DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-13-13 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Sassy Molyneux, Stephen Mulupi, Lairumbi Mbaabu, Vicki Marsh |
Abstract |
There is general consensus internationally that unfair distribution of the benefits of research is exploitative and should be avoided or reduced. However, what constitutes fair benefits, and the exact nature of the benefits and their mode of provision can be strongly contested. Empirical studies have the potential to contribute viewpoints and experiences to debates and guidelines, but few have been conducted. We conducted a study to support the development of guidelines on benefits and payments for studies conducted by the KEMRI-Wellcome Trust programme in Kilifi, Kenya. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 3 | 30% |
Nigeria | 1 | 10% |
Ghana | 1 | 10% |
Unknown | 5 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 8 | 80% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Sierra Leone | 1 | <1% |
United States | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 105 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 20 | 19% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 16% |
Researcher | 11 | 10% |
Student > Bachelor | 7 | 7% |
Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 6% |
Other | 22 | 21% |
Unknown | 24 | 22% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Social Sciences | 25 | 23% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 17% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 9% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 6% |
Psychology | 4 | 4% |
Other | 19 | 18% |
Unknown | 25 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 09 July 2012.
All research outputs
#4,742,977
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#462
of 1,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,398
of 166,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#3
of 12 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 80th 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 166,045 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.