↓ Skip to main content

Assessing children’s competence to consent in research by a standardized tool: a validity study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pediatrics, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 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
Assessing children’s competence to consent in research by a standardized tool: a validity study
Published in
BMC Pediatrics, September 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2431-12-156
Pubmed ID
Authors

Irma M Hein, Pieter W Troost, Robert Lindeboom, Martine C de Vries, C Michel Zwaan, Ramón J L Lindauer

Abstract

Currently over 50% of drugs prescribed to children have not been evaluated properly for use in their age group. One key reason why children have been excluded from clinical trials is that they are not considered able to exercise meaningful autonomy over the decision to participate. Dutch law states that competence to consent can be presumed present at the age of 12 and above; however, in pediatric practice children's competence is not that clearly presented and the transition from assent to active consent is gradual. A gold standard for competence assessment in children does not exist. In this article we describe a study protocol on the development of a standardized tool for assessing competence to consent in research in children and adolescents.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 106 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 16%
Student > Bachelor 17 16%
Researcher 16 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Other 23 21%
Unknown 19 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 10%
Psychology 8 7%
Social Sciences 8 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 27 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 22 November 2014.
All research outputs
#3,611,791
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pediatrics
#544
of 3,494 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,614
of 191,354 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pediatrics
#10
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 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 3,494 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 191,354 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.