↓ Skip to main content

Institutional Review Boards’ Use and Understanding of Certificates of Confidentiality

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Institutional Review Boards’ Use and Understanding of Certificates of Confidentiality
Published in
PLOS ONE, September 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0044050
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura M. Beskow, Devon K. Check, Emily E. Namey, Lauren A. Dame, Li Lin, Alexandra Cooper, Kevin P. Weinfurt, Leslie E. Wolf

Abstract

Certificates of Confidentiality, issued by agencies of the U.S. government, are regarded as an important tool for meeting ethical and legal obligations to safeguard research participants' privacy and confidentiality. By shielding against forced disclosure of identifying data, Certificates are intended to facilitate research on sensitive topics critical to the public's health. Although Certificates are potentially applicable to an extensive array of research, their full legal effect is unclear, and little is known about stakeholders' views of the protections they provide. To begin addressing this challenge, we conducted a national survey of institutional review board (IRB) chairs, followed by telephone interviews with selected chairs, to learn more about their familiarity with and opinions about Certificates; their institutions' use of Certificates; policies and practices concerning when Certificates are required or recommended; and the role Certificates play in assessments of research risk. Overall, our results suggest uncertainty about Certificates among IRB chairs. On most objective knowledge questions, most respondents chose the incorrect answer or 'unsure'. Among chairs who reported more familiarity with Certificates, composite opinion scores calculated based on five survey questions were evenly distributed among positive, neutral/middle, and negative views. Further, respondents expressed a variety of ideas about the appropriate use of Certificates, what they are intended to protect, and their effect on research risk. Nevertheless, chairs who participated in our study commonly viewed Certificates as a potentially valuable tool, frequently describing them as an 'extra layer' of protection. These findings lead to several practical observations concerning the need for more stakeholder education about Certificates, consideration of Certificates for a broader range of studies, the importance of remaining vigilant and using all tools available to protect participants' confidentiality, and the need for further empirical investigation of Certificates' effect on researchers and research participants.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 8%
Brazil 1 4%
Malaysia 1 4%
Belgium 1 4%
Mexico 1 4%
Unknown 20 77%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 31%
Researcher 6 23%
Student > Master 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Professor 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 4 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Engineering 2 8%
Other 7 27%
Unknown 6 23%
Attention Score in Context

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 September 2012.
All research outputs
#14,150,222
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#115,596
of 193,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,055
of 169,085 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,503
of 4,380 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,562 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 169,085 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,380 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.