↓ Skip to main content

Relevant Information and Informed Consent in Research: In Defense of the Subjective Standard of Disclosure

Overview of attention for article published in Science & Engineering Ethics, January 2016
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 (83rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Relevant Information and Informed Consent in Research: In Defense of the Subjective Standard of Disclosure
Published in
Science & Engineering Ethics, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11948-016-9755-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vilius Dranseika, Jan Piasecki, Marcin Waligora

Abstract

In this article, we seek to contribute to the debate on the requirement of disclosure in the context of informed consent for research. We defend the subjective standard of disclosure and describe ways to implement this standard in research practice. We claim that the researcher should make an effort to find out what kinds of information are likely to be relevant for those consenting to research. This invites researchers to take empirical survey information seriously, attempt to understand the cultural context, talk to patients to be better able to understand what can be potentially different concerns and interests prevalent in the target population. The subjective standard of disclosure should be seen as a moral ideal that perhaps can never be perfectly implemented but still can and should be used as a normative ideal guiding research practice. In the light of these discussions, we call for more empirical research on what considerations are likely to be perceived as relevant by potential research participants recruited from different socio-economic and cultural groups.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 25%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 17%
Student > Master 2 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 17%
Other 1 8%
Other 2 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 8%
Unspecified 1 8%
Other 5 42%

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 24 March 2016.
All research outputs
#1,092,886
of 8,482,154 outputs
Outputs from Science & Engineering Ethics
#119
of 544 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,640
of 333,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science & Engineering Ethics
#6
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,482,154 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 544 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 333,286 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 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 64% of its contemporaries.