↓ Skip to main content

Using digital health to enable ethical health research in conflict and other humanitarian settings

Overview of attention for article published in Conflict and Health, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#21 of 551)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
31 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 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
Using digital health to enable ethical health research in conflict and other humanitarian settings
Published in
Conflict and Health, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13031-018-0163-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eric D. Perakslis

Abstract

Conducting research in a humanitarian setting requires quantifiable quality measures to ensure ethical study conduct. Digital health technologies are proven to improve research study quality and efficacy via automated data collection, improvement of data reliability, fidelity and resilience and by improved data provenance and traceability. Additionally, digital health methodologies can improve patient identity, patient privacy, study transparency, data sharing, competent informed consent, and the confidentiality and security of humanitarian operations. It can seem counterintuitive to press forward aggressively with digital technologies at a time of heightened population vulnerability and cyber security concerns, but new approaches are essential to meet the rapidly increasing demands of humanitarian research. In this paper we present the case for the digital modernization of humanitarian research in conflict and other humanitarian settings as a vehicle for improved research quality and ethics.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 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 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 90 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 16%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 4%
Other 19 21%
Unknown 18 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 12 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 12%
Social Sciences 10 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 9%
Engineering 6 7%
Other 20 22%
Unknown 23 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 62. 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 March 2020.
All research outputs
#534,778
of 21,653,050 outputs
Outputs from Conflict and Health
#21
of 551 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,520
of 298,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conflict and Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,653,050 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 551 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 298,030 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them