↓ Skip to main content

Ethical implications of research on craving

Overview of attention for article published in Addictive Behaviors, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Ethical implications of research on craving
Published in
Addictive Behaviors, February 2013
DOI 10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.07.002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adrian Carter, Wayne Hall

Abstract

Cravings, intense desires to experience the effects of a drug, are widely regarded as significant impediments to overcoming addiction, although their role in relapse may be overstated. Scientists and clinicians wish to better understand the neurobiological and cognitive basis of craving so that they may develop psychotherapeutic, pharmacological and other medical methods to reduce craving and thereby drug use. The conduct of such research raises significant ethical issues. When recruiting individuals and conducting this research, scientists need to ensure that substance dependent participants have the capacity to provide free and uncoerced consent. This is especially the case in studies in which dependent participants are given their drug of addiction or provided with other inducements to participate (e.g. financial incentives) that may undermine their ability to fully consider the risks of participation. Treatments for addiction that seek to reduce cravings may also carry risks. This includes psychotherapeutic approaches, as well as pharmacological and medical treatments. Clinicians need to consider the risks and benefits of treatment and carefully communicate these to patients. The desire to reduce urges to use drugs should not be employed to justify potentially harmful and ineffective treatments. The safety and effectiveness of emerging treatments should be assessed by well conducted randomized controlled clinical trials.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
France 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Romania 1 3%
Netherlands 1 3%
Unknown 25 83%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 13%
Student > Master 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Professor 3 10%
Other 12 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 30%
Social Sciences 6 20%
Unspecified 4 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Other 4 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 03 December 2012.
All research outputs
#3,452,696
of 12,240,493 outputs
Outputs from Addictive Behaviors
#861
of 2,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,151
of 117,191 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Addictive Behaviors
#6
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,240,493 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,793 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 117,191 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.