↓ Skip to main content

Stakeholders understanding of the concept of benefit sharing in health research in Kenya: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, October 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Stakeholders understanding of the concept of benefit sharing in health research in Kenya: a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, October 2011
DOI 10.1186/1472-6939-12-20
Pubmed ID
Authors

Geoffrey M Lairumbi, Michael Parker, Raymond Fitzpatrick, English C Mike

Abstract

The concept of benefit sharing to enhance the social value of global health research in resource poor settings is now a key strategy for addressing moral issues of relevance to individuals, communities and host countries in resource poor settings when they participate in international collaborative health research.The influence of benefit sharing framework on the conduct of collaborative health research is for instance evidenced by the number of publications and research ethics guidelines that require prior engagement between stakeholders to determine the social value of research to the host communities. While such efforts as the production of international guidance on how to promote the social value of research through such strategies as benefit sharing have been made, the extent to which these ideas and guidelines have been absorbed by those engaged in global health research especially in resource poor settings remains unclear. We examine this awareness among stakeholders involved in health related research in Kenya.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 2%
Sierra Leone 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Malawi 1 1%
Unknown 89 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 15%
Researcher 13 14%
Librarian 5 5%
Professor 5 5%
Other 20 21%
Unknown 17 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 28%
Social Sciences 23 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 19 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 05 October 2011.
All research outputs
#20,147,309
of 22,653,392 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#940
of 986 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,966
of 132,696 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#9
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,653,392 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 986 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 132,696 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.