↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Participants' perception of pharmaceutical clinical research: a cross-sectional controlled study

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
Participants' perception of pharmaceutical clinical research: a cross-sectional controlled study
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, April 2016
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s96021
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gerardo González-Saldivar, René Rodríguez-Gutiérrez, José Luis Viramontes-Madrid, Alejandro Salcido-Montenegro, Kevin Erick Gabriel Carlos-Reyna, Andrés Marcelo Treviño-Alvarez, Neri Alejandro Álvarez-Villalobos, José Gerardo González-González

Abstract

There is scarce scientific information assessing participants' perception of pharmaceutical research in developed and developing countries concerning the risks, safety, and purpose of clinical trials. To assess the perception that 604 trial participants (cases) and 604 nonparticipants (controls) of pharmaceutical clinical trials have about pharmaceutical clinical research, we surveyed participants with one of four chronic diseases from 12 research sites throughout Mexico. Participation in clinical trials positively influences the perception of pharmaceutical clinical research. More cases (65.4%) than controls (50.7%) perceived that the main purpose of pharmaceutical research is to cure more diseases and to do so more effectively. In addition, more cases considered that there are significant benefits when participating in a research study, such as excellent medical care and extra free services, with this being the most important motivation to participate for both groups (cases 52%, controls 54.5%). We also found a sense of trust in their physicians to deal with adverse events, and the perception that clinical research is a benefit to their health, rather than a risk. More controls believed that clinical trial participants' health is put at risk (57% vs 33.3%). More cases (99.2%) than controls (77.5%) would recommend participating in a clinical trial, and 90% of cases would enroll in a clinical trial again. Participation in clinical trials positively influences the perception that participants have about pharmaceutical clinical research when compared to nonparticipants. This information needs to be conveyed to clinicians, public health authorities, and general population to overcome misconceptions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Student > Master 4 10%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 13 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 39%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 17 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 25 May 2016.
All research outputs
#4,758,140
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#296
of 1,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,867
of 315,181 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#14
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,733 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 315,181 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.