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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
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
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.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 3 | 43% |
United States | 2 | 29% |
Nigeria | 1 | 14% |
Unknown | 1 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
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
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.