↓ Skip to main content

Co-design and implementation research: challenges and solutions for ethics committees

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#10 of 865)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
153 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
86 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
273 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
Co-design and implementation research: challenges and solutions for ethics committees
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12910-015-0072-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Felicity Goodyear-Smith, Claire Jackson, Trisha Greenhalgh

Abstract

Implementation science research, especially when using participatory and co-design approaches, raises unique challenges for research ethics committees. Such challenges may be poorly addressed by approval and governance mechanisms that were developed for more traditional research approaches such as randomised controlled trials. Implementation science commonly involves the partnership of researchers and stakeholders, attempting to understand and encourage uptake of completed or piloted research. A co-creation approach involves collaboration between researchers and end users from the onset, in question framing, research design and delivery, and influencing strategy, with implementation and broader dissemination strategies part of its design from gestation. A defining feature of co-creation is its emergent and adaptive nature, making detailed pre-specification of interventions and outcome measures impossible. This methodology sits oddly with ethics committee protocols that require precise pre-definition of interventions, mode of delivery, outcome measurements, and the role of study participants. But the strict (and, some would say, inflexible) requirements of ethics committees were developed for a purpose - to protect participants from harm and help ensure the rigour and transparency of studies. We propose some guiding principles to help square this circle. First, ethics committees should acknowledge and celebrate the diversity of research approaches, both formally (through training) and informally (by promoting debate and discussion); without active support, their members may not understand or value participatory designs. Second, ground rules should be established for co-design applications (e.g. how to judge when 'consultation' or 'engagement' becomes research) and communicated to committee members and stakeholders. Third, the benefits of power-sharing should be recognised and credit given to measures likely to support this important goal, especially in research with vulnerable communities. Co-design is considered best practice, for example, in research involving indigenous peoples in New Zealand, Australia and Canada.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 153 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 273 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Unknown 270 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 50 18%
Student > Master 50 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 16%
Other 14 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 5%
Other 57 21%
Unknown 43 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 46 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 46 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 13%
Design 15 5%
Psychology 12 4%
Other 53 19%
Unknown 66 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 112. 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 22 November 2019.
All research outputs
#249,173
of 19,465,622 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#10
of 865 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,601
of 388,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#3
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,465,622 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 865 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 388,001 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.