↓ Skip to main content

Engaging with research ethics in central Francophone Africa: reflections on a workshop about ancillary care

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Engaging with research ethics in central Francophone Africa: reflections on a workshop about ancillary care
Published in
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, January 2012
DOI 10.1186/1747-5341-7-10
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tomi Tshikala, Bavon Mupenda, Pierre Dimany, Aime Malonga, Vicky Ilunga, Stuart Rennie

Abstract

Research ethics is predominantly taught and practiced in Anglophone countries, particularly those in North America and Western Europe. Initiatives to build research ethics capacity in developing countries must attempt to avoid imposing foreign frameworks and engage with ethical issues in research that are locally relevant. This article describes the process and outcomes of a capacity-building workshop that took place in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo in the summer of 2011. Although the workshop focused on a specific ethical theme - the responsibilities of researchers to provide health-related care to their research participants - we argue that the structure of the workshop offers a useful method for engaging with research ethics in general, and the theme of ancillary care encourages a broad perspective on research ethics that is highly pertinent in low-income countries. The workshop follows an interactive, locally driven model that could be fruitfully replicated in similar settings.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 4%
United States 1 4%
South Africa 1 4%
Unknown 23 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 23%
Student > Master 5 19%
Student > Postgraduate 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Professor 2 8%
Other 6 23%
Unknown 1 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 31%
Social Sciences 5 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 3 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 August 2012.
All research outputs
#10,956,672
of 14,421,207 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#172
of 190 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,942
of 125,633 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,421,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 190 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 125,633 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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