↓ 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
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#18 of 1,107)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
141 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
180 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
369 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 141 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 369 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 366 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 62 17%
Student > Master 61 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 60 16%
Other 20 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 4%
Other 74 20%
Unknown 76 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 17%
Social Sciences 54 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 51 14%
Design 16 4%
Psychology 14 4%
Other 70 19%
Unknown 101 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 106. 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 11 December 2023.
All research outputs
#399,469
of 25,463,724 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#18
of 1,107 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,340
of 274,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#4
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,463,724 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 1,107 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. 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 274,852 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 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.