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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
What makes public health studies ethical? Dissolving the boundary between research and practice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-15-61 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Donald J Willison, Nancy Ondrusek, Angus Dawson, Claudia Emerson, Lorraine E Ferris, Raphael Saginur, Heather Sampson, Ross Upshur |
| Abstract |
The generation of evidence is integral to the work of public health and health service providers. Traditionally, ethics has been addressed differently in research projects, compared with other forms of evidence generation, such as quality improvement, program evaluation, and surveillance, with review of non-research activities falling outside the purview of the research ethics board. However, the boundaries between research and these other evaluative activities are not distinct. Efforts to delineate a boundary - whether on grounds of primary purpose, temporality, underlying legal authority, departure from usual practice, or direct benefits to participants - have been unsatisfactory.Public Health Ontario has eschewed this distinction between research and other evaluative activities, choosing to adopt a common framework and process to guide ethical reflection on all public health evaluative projects throughout their lifecycle - from initial planning through to knowledge exchange. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 29% |
| Canada | 3 | 18% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 12% |
| Australia | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 47% |
| Members of the public | 5 | 29% |
| Scientists | 3 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| New Zealand | 1 | 1% |
| India | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 81 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 21% |
| Researcher | 14 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 18% |
| Unknown | 12 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 27% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 17% |
| Philosophy | 7 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 6% |
| Psychology | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 18% |
| Unknown | 16 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 01 January 2016.
All research outputs
#2,482,308
of 25,008,338 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#253
of 1,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,374
of 236,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#4
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,008,338 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,084 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 done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 236,451 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.