↓ Skip to main content

Informed consent in the psychosis prodrome: ethical, procedural and cultural considerations

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, January 2014
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 (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Informed consent in the psychosis prodrome: ethical, procedural and cultural considerations
Published in
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1747-5341-9-19
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah E Morris, Robert K Heinssen

Abstract

Research focused on the prodromal period prior to the onset of psychosis is essential for the further development of strategies for early detection, early intervention, and disease pre-emption. Such efforts necessarily require the enrollment of individuals who are at risk of psychosis but have not yet developed a psychotic illness into research and treatment protocols. This work is becoming increasingly internationalized, which warrants special consideration of cultural differences in conceptualization of mental illness and international differences in health care practices and rights regarding research participation. The process of identifying and requesting informed consent from individuals at elevated risk for psychosis requires thoughtful communication about illness risk and often involves the participation of family members. Empirical studies of risk reasoning and decisional capacity in young people and individuals with psychosis suggest that most individuals who are at-risk for psychosis can adequately provide informed consent; however ongoing improvements to tools and procedures are important to ensure that this work proceeds with maximal consideration of relevant ethical issues. This review provides a discussion of these issues in the context of international research efforts.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Mexico 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 63 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 26%
Researcher 10 15%
Student > Bachelor 9 14%
Other 7 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 8 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 29%
Psychology 15 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Philosophy 3 5%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 13 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 16 May 2015.
All research outputs
#2,384,350
of 13,416,246 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#102
of 184 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,318
of 296,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#6
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,416,246 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 184 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 296,083 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.