↓ Skip to main content

Accessing health services through the back door: a qualitative interview study investigating reasons why people participate in health research in Canada

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, October 2013
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
18 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 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
Accessing health services through the back door: a qualitative interview study investigating reasons why people participate in health research in Canada
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, October 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6939-14-40
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Townsend, Susan M Cox

Abstract

Although there is extensive information about why people participate in clinical trials, studies are largely based on quantitative evidence and typically focus on single conditions. Over the last decade investigations into why people volunteer for health research have become increasingly prominent across diverse research settings, offering variable based explanations of participation patterns driven primarily by recruitment concerns. Therapeutic misconception and altruism have emerged as predominant themes in this literature on motivations to participate in health research. This paper contributes to more recent qualitative approaches to understanding how and why people come to participate in various types of health research. We focus on the experience of participating and the meanings research participation has for people within the context of their lives and their health and illness biographies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 2%
Spain 1 1%
Slovenia 1 1%
Unknown 88 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 20%
Researcher 15 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 15 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 22%
Social Sciences 14 15%
Psychology 12 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 4%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 18 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 November 2019.
All research outputs
#1,855,641
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#178
of 1,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,487
of 213,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#1
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,009 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 213,726 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.