↓ Skip to main content

Ethical and legal constraints to children’s participation in research in Zimbabwe: experiences from the multicenter pediatric HIV ARROW trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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 legal constraints to children’s participation in research in Zimbabwe: experiences from the multicenter pediatric HIV ARROW trial
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, July 2012
DOI 10.1186/1472-6939-13-17
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mutsa Bwakura-Dangarembizi, Rosemary Musesengwa, Kusum J Nathoo, Patrick Takaidza, Tawanda Mhute, Tichaona Vhembo

Abstract

Clinical trials involving children previously considered unethical are now considered essential because of the inherent physiological differences between children and adults. An integral part of research ethics is the informed consent, which for children is obtained by proxy from a consenting parent or guardian. The informed consent process is governed by international ethical codes that are interpreted in accordance with local laws and procedures raising the importance of contextualizing their implementation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Peru 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 65 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 15%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 12 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 13%
Social Sciences 7 10%
Psychology 5 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 14 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 13 January 2013.
All research outputs
#6,669,670
of 22,671,366 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#558
of 988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,664
of 163,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,671,366 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 988 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 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 163,875 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.