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 |
Actors involved in the regulation of clinical research: comparison of Finland to England, Canada, and the USA
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Research Policy and Systems, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12961-015-0009-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elina Hemminki |
| Abstract |
The relevance and quantity of clinical research has caused concern and regulation is claimed to hinder clinical research. This paper compares clinical research regulations in Finland to those of England, Canada, and the USA around 2010-2011. Several approaches and data sources were used, including semi- or unstructured interviews of experts. For the analysis, a theoretical framework was made, data from various sources was synthesized, and features of the systems were simplified and classified. The various specific names and terms used in the data were changed into general ones. Common structures for the regulation existed in all four countries, but the details and scope varied. The research regulated within the main system was determined by research type (Finland), the financer of the health system (England), or research site (Canada, USA). Only Finland had specific legislation on medical research. The overriding impression of the regulatory systems was one of complexity. All countries had extra regulation for drug research. The types of drug research covered varied from trials with unlicensed (new) products or new indications (USA and Canada), to all types of interventional drug research (England), where 'interventional' was interpreted broadly (Finland). The complexity of regulations had led to the creation of various big and small businesses to help researchers and sponsors. There was notable variation in the role played by the public research funder. The role played by health care was difficult to study and seemed to involve varying interests as researchers were also health care employees. Research ethics committees were important and their tasks also included aspects other than ethics. This study revealed that a comparison between countries can provide useful insights into the distinctive aspects of each country's system, as well as identifying common features that require international action. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 26 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 26% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 19% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 7 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 8 | 30% |
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 18 June 2015.
All research outputs
#14,807,084
of 22,799,071 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#1,049
of 1,213 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,937
of 264,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#16
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,799,071 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 1,213 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 264,847 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.