↓ Skip to main content

Researchers’ perceptions of ethical challenges in cluster randomized trials: a qualitative analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, January 2013
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
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Researchers’ perceptions of ethical challenges in cluster randomized trials: a qualitative analysis
Published in
Trials, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-14-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew D McRae, Carol Bennett, Judith Belle Brown, Charles Weijer, Robert Boruch, Jamie Brehaut, Shazia Chaudhry, Allan Donner, Martin Eccles, Jeremy Grimshaw, Merrick Zwarenstein, Monica Taljaard

Abstract

Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) pose ethical challenges for investigators and ethics committees. This study describes the views and experiences of CRT researchers with respect to: (1) ethical challenges in CRTs; (2) the ethics review process for CRTs; and (3) the need for comprehensive ethics guidelines for CRTs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
South Africa 1 2%
Unknown 48 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 26%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Lecturer 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Other 12 24%
Unknown 8 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 38%
Psychology 9 18%
Social Sciences 5 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 8 16%

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 08 March 2013.
All research outputs
#12,602,212
of 21,342,999 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#3,038
of 5,436 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,495
of 292,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#216
of 396 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,342,999 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,436 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 292,554 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 396 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.