↓ Skip to main content

Seeking consent for research with indigenous communities: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
176 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
Seeking consent for research with indigenous communities: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12910-016-0139-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emily F. M. Fitzpatrick, Alexandra L. C. Martiniuk, Heather D’Antoine, June Oscar, Maureen Carter, Elizabeth J. Elliott

Abstract

When conducting research with Indigenous populations consent should be sought from both individual participants and the local community. We aimed to search and summarise the literature about methods for seeking consent for research with Indigenous populations. A systematic literature search was conducted for articles that describe or evaluate the process of seeking informed consent for research with Indigenous participants. Guidelines for ethical research and for seeking consent with Indigenous people are also included in our review. Of 1447 articles found 1391 were excluded (duplicates, irrelevant, not in English); 56 were relevant and included. Articles were categorised into original research that evaluated the consent process (n = 5) or publications detailing the process of seeking consent (n = 13) and guidelines for ethical research (n = 38). Guidelines were categorised into international (n = 8); national (n = 20) and state/regional/local guidelines (n = 10). In five studies based in Australia, Canada and The United States of America the consent process with Indigenous people was objectively evaluated. In 13 other studies interpreters, voice recording, videos, pictures, flipcharts and "plain language" forms were used to assist in seeking consent but these processes were not evaluated. Some Indigenous organisations provide examples of community-designed resources for seeking consent and describe methods of community engagement, but none are evaluated. International, national and local ethical guidelines stress the importance of upholding Indigenous values but fail to specify methods for engaging communities or obtaining individual consent. In the 'Grey literature' concerns about the consent process are identified but no solutions are offered. Consultation with Indigenous communities is needed to determine how consent should be sought from the community and the individual, and how to evaluate this process.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 175 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 14%
Researcher 23 13%
Student > Bachelor 19 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 10%
Other 8 5%
Other 32 18%
Unknown 51 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 16%
Social Sciences 29 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 7%
Psychology 11 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 5%
Other 33 19%
Unknown 52 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 25 August 2021.
All research outputs
#3,693,075
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#373
of 1,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,142
of 317,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#10
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,016 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 317,448 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.