↓ Skip to main content

Ethical implications of research on craving

Overview of attention for article published in Addictive Behaviors, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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, July 2012
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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
United States 1 2%
France 1 2%
Romania 1 2%
Unknown 45 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Professor 4 8%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 9 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 14%
Social Sciences 6 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 8%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 10 20%
Attention Score in Context

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
#8,426,350
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Addictive Behaviors
#1,815
of 4,433 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,231
of 163,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Addictive Behaviors
#15
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,433 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 163,838 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.