↓ Skip to main content

Implementation of clinical research trials using web-based and mobile devices: challenges and solutions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
189 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
Implementation of clinical research trials using web-based and mobile devices: challenges and solutions
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0324-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roy Eagleson, Luis Altamirano-Diaz, Alex McInnis, Eva Welisch, Stefanie De Jesus, Harry Prapavessis, Meghan Rombeek, Jamie A. Seabrook, Teresa Park, Kambiz Norozi

Abstract

With the increasing implementation of web-based, mobile health interventions in clinical trials, it is crucial for researchers to address the security and privacy concerns of patient information according to high ethical standards. The full process of meeting these standards is often made more complicated due to the use of internet-based technology and smartphones for treatment, telecommunication, and data collection; however, this process is not well-documented in the literature. The Smart Heart Trial is a single-arm feasibility study that is currently assessing the effects of a web-based, mobile lifestyle intervention for overweight and obese children and youth with congenital heart disease in Southwestern Ontario. Participants receive telephone counseling regarding nutrition and fitness; and complete goal-setting activities on a web-based application. This paper provides a detailed overview of the challenges the study faced in meeting the high standards of our Research Ethics Board, specifically regarding patient privacy. We outline our solutions, successes, limitations, and lessons learned to inform future similar studies; and model much needed transparency in ensuring high quality security and protection of patient privacy when using web-based and mobile devices for telecommunication and data collection in clinical research.

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 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 189 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 20%
Researcher 23 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 11%
Student > Bachelor 17 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Other 30 16%
Unknown 52 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 14%
Psychology 12 6%
Computer Science 9 5%
Engineering 6 3%
Other 32 17%
Unknown 69 37%
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 21 March 2017.
All research outputs
#16,080,441
of 24,468,058 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,555
of 2,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,560
of 338,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#39
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,468,058 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,173 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 338,497 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.