↓ Skip to main content

Stakeholders’ engagement with Ebola therapy research in resource limited settings

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
144 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’ engagement with Ebola therapy research in resource limited settings
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12879-015-0950-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Morenike Oluwatoyin Folayan, Brandon Brown, Bridget Haire, Aminu Yakubu, Kristin Peterson, Jemee Tegli

Abstract

The current Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak in West Africa is the largest in history. As of February 18(th) 2015, 23,258 cases of EVD have been cumulatively reported from Nigeria, Senegal, Guinea, Liberia, Mali, Sierra Leone, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States of America resulting in more than 9,000 deaths. It is therefore exigent to develop prevention and treatment therapies for EVD. Several new EVD treatments are in clinical development at this time. Based on lessons learned, four critical processes need to be implemented before clinical trials begin. First, all global EVD research need to be coordinated to promote data sharing and synergistic overlap, while reducing unnecessary duplication of efforts. The World Health Organization is well-placed to undertake such an endeavor. Second, governments of affected nations where trials are being proposed need to lead discussions regarding immediate access to any proven medications for epidemics. Also, governments need to leverage international resources to support and expand existing national expertise to jointly conduct high-caliber clinical research; and resources must be used to enhance local technical skills and expand existing personnel. Third, ethics committees must review protocols, monitor the research process, and work closely with research scientists to insure the ethical integrity of research throughout the trials. Fourth, community advisory boards (CAB) need to be formed, linked with existing community leadership structures and organized in conjunction with trial implementation. These community structures should work together with ethics committees to facilitate the study design, informed consent process, and study implementation. We must facilitate communication and mutual understanding between trial communities and research teams, and promote positive collaborations between all stakeholders engaged in EVD research. The community engagement process for EVD research is crucial to address myths and misconceptions, and to promote study volunteers' understanding of the research details. The collaboration between all stakeholders is crucial for continued long term partnership to address EVD outbreak and none of the stakeholders should be left behind in ongoing efforts to develop EVD therapies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Sierra Leone 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 140 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 22%
Researcher 20 14%
Other 15 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 8%
Student > Bachelor 9 6%
Other 34 24%
Unknown 22 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 13%
Social Sciences 16 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 3%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 31 22%
Attention Score in Context

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 08 July 2015.
All research outputs
#14,064,165
of 23,312,088 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#3,603
of 7,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,912
of 264,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#44
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,312,088 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,804 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 264,622 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.