| Title |
Ethical considerations in adherence research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s117802 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nupur U Patel, Blake A Moore, Rebekah F Craver, Steven R Feldman |
| Abstract |
Poor adherence to treatment is a common cause of medical treatment failure. Studying adherence is complicated by the potential for the study environment to impact adherence behavior. Studies performed without informing patients about adherence monitoring must balance the risks of deception against the potential benefits of the knowledge to be gained. Ethically monitoring a patient's adherence to a treatment plan without full disclosure of the monitoring plan requires protecting the patient's rights and upholding the fiduciary obligations of the investigator. Adherence monitoring can utilize different levels of deception varying from stealth monitoring, debriefing after the study while informing the subject that some information had been withheld in regard to the use of adherence monitoring (withholding), informed consent that discloses some form of adherence monitoring is being used and will be disclosed at the end of the study (authorized deception), and full disclosure. Different approaches offer different benefits and potential pitfalls. The approach used must balance the risk of nondisclosure against the potential for confounding the adherence monitoring data and the potential benefits that adherence monitoring data will have for the research subjects and/or other populations. This commentary aims to define various methods of adherence monitoring and to provide a discussion of the ethical considerations that accompany the use of each method and adherence monitoring in general as it is used in clinical research. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 43 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 12% |
| Researcher | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 12 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 14% |
| Psychology | 4 | 9% |
| Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Unknown | 14 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 05 December 2016.
All research outputs
#22,777,327
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,650
of 1,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#356,800
of 416,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#33
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,759 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 416,622 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.