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 |
Ethical issues related to consent for intrapartum trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Reproductive Health, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12978-017-0426-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hema Dhumale, Shivaprasad Goudar |
| Abstract |
Informed consent is the heart of ethical research. For any consent to be ethically valid, it should meet certain critical criteria- disclosure and understanding of relevant information, decision making competency of the participants, voluntariness of the decision and documentation of the agreement. Meeting all these criteria to obtain ethically valid consent from laboring women while conducting intrapartum trials is challenging because there is little time available during labor to provide study specific information necessary for the participant to understand and decide to sign the consent form. Moreover, women during labor may be anxious and distressed due to labor pains which is thought to interfere with the capacity to make decisions in some cases. Emphasis on these concerns may ultimately lead to the exclusion of many eligible women in labor from intrapartum clinical trials. In this paper, we discuss the ethical challenges and also the proposed recommendations to obtain ethically valid consent from women for conducting intrapartum clinical trials. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 Kingdom | 3 | 38% |
| Thailand | 1 | 13% |
| France | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 10% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 13 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 13 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 24 August 2018.
All research outputs
#6,275,343
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#711
of 1,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,769
of 439,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#37
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,424 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 439,309 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 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.