↓ Skip to main content

Ethical and definitional considerations in research on child sexual violence in India

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
Ethical and definitional considerations in research on child sexual violence in India
Published in
BMC Public Health, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-6036-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Radhika Dayal, Ameeta S. Kalokhe, Vikas Choudhry, Divya Pillai, Klaus Beier, Vikram Patel

Abstract

While critically important, child sexual violence (CSV) research poses numerous ethical and safety challenges. Recently, the studies dedicated to understanding and addressing CSV in India have been on the rise, but no published ethical guidelines to direct such research currently exist. To help inform ethical and safety recommendations for the design, conduct, and reporting of future CSV research in India and similar settings, we systematically reviewed the ethics and safety practices reported in recent Indian CSV literature. A multi-tiered approach was used to understand current ethical practices and gaps: 1) systematic review of Indian CSV studies published over the past decade, 2) examination of existing guidelines on related topics to develop an ethical framework, 3) development of an ethics checklist based on the recommendations from the surveyed guidelines, and 4) application of the checklist to each of the reviewed studies. Our search yielded 51 eligible studies. From each, data from 6 major thematic areas was extracted: informed consent, confidentiality, selection, training, and protection of study team members, validity of CSV measurement methods, measures to minimize participant harm, and participant compensation. Several gaps were noted: only two-thirds reported approval by ethics committees, obtaining informed consent, and assured participants of confidentiality. Only 25% (13/51) reported assessing ongoing CSV risk and providing necessary support services, none noted whether ongoing CSV was reported to authorities (required by Indian law), and none reported safeguards to protect staff from the effects of conducting CSV research. Further, 43% (22/51) limited surveillance of CSV to one form of abuse and/or used a "loaded term," increasing the potential for underreporting. Through enhancing understanding of current ethical practices and gaps in CSV research in India, this systematic review informs reporting protocols and future guidelines for CSV research in India and other similar settings.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 29%
Student > Master 4 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 12%
Other 2 12%
Other 2 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 35%
Social Sciences 5 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 12%
Neuroscience 1 6%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 27 December 2018.
All research outputs
#2,093,518
of 14,067,456 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,393
of 9,684 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,966
of 272,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#5
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,067,456 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,684 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 272,363 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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 70% of its contemporaries.