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 |
Assessing the quality of informed consent in a resource-limited setting: A cross-sectional study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, August 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-13-21 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ronald Kiguba, Paul Kutyabami, Stephen Kiwuwa, Elly Katabira, Nelson K Sewankambo |
| Abstract |
The process of obtaining informed consent continues to be a contentious issue in clinical and public health research carried out in resource-limited settings. We sought to evaluate this process among human research participants in randomly selected active research studies approved by the School of Medicine Research and Ethics Committee at the College of Health Sciences, Makerere University. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 States | 3 | 50% |
| Canada | 1 | 17% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 17% |
| Mexico | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Sierra Leone | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 66 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 29% |
| Researcher | 11 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 9 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 37% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 16% |
| Psychology | 4 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 12 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 26 March 2018.
All research outputs
#4,881,227
of 23,885,338 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#473
of 1,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,622
of 171,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#4
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,885,338 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,019 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 171,068 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 80% 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 5 of them.