↓ Skip to main content

Ethics in practice: the state of the debate on promoting the social value of global health research in resource poor settings particularly Africa

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, November 2011
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 (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
130 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
Ethics in practice: the state of the debate on promoting the social value of global health research in resource poor settings particularly Africa
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, November 2011
DOI 10.1186/1472-6939-12-22
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

Promoting the social value of global health research undertaken in resource poor settings has become a key concern in global research ethics. The consideration for benefit sharing, which concerns the elucidation of what if anything, is owed to participants, their communities and host nations that take part in such research, and the obligations of researchers involved, is one of the main strategies used for promoting social value of research. In the last decade however, there has been intense debate within academic bioethics literature seeking to define the benefits, the beneficiaries, and the scope of obligations for providing these benefits. Although this debate may be indicative of willingness at the international level to engage with the responsibilities of researchers involved in global health research, it remains unclear which forms of benefits or beneficiaries should be considered. International and local research ethics guidelines are reviewed here to delineate the guidance they provide.

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 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Sierra Leone 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Unknown 124 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 20%
Unspecified 16 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 12%
Researcher 14 11%
Student > Postgraduate 8 6%
Other 37 28%
Unknown 14 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 30 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 29 22%
Unspecified 16 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 17 13%
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 06 March 2012.
All research outputs
#13,860,586
of 22,656,971 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#729
of 987 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,161
of 141,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,656,971 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 987 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 141,188 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 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