↓ Skip to main content

Power, fairness and trust: understanding and engaging with vaccine trial participants and communities in the setting up the EBOVAC-Salone vaccine trial in Sierra Leone

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
152 Mendeley
Title
Power, fairness and trust: understanding and engaging with vaccine trial participants and communities in the setting up the EBOVAC-Salone vaccine trial in Sierra Leone
Published in
BMC Public Health, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3799-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luisa Enria, Shelley Lees, Elizabeth Smout, Thomas Mooney, Angus F. Tengbeh, Bailah Leigh, Brian Greenwood, Deborah Watson-Jones, Heidi Larson

Abstract

This paper discusses the establishment of a clinical trial of an Ebola vaccine candidate in Kambia District, Northern Sierra Leone during the epidemic, and analyses the role of social science research in ensuring that lessons from the socio-political context, the recent experience of the Ebola outbreak, and learning from previous clinical trials were incorporated in the development of community engagement strategies. The paper aims to provide a case study of an integrated social science and communications system in the start-up phase of the clinical trial. The paper is based on qualitative research methods including ethnographic observation, interviews with trial participants and key stakeholder interviews. Through the case study of EBOVAC Salone, the paper suggests ways in which research can be used to inform communication strategies before and during the setting up of the trial. It explores notions of power, fairness and trust emerging from analysis of the Sierra Leonean context and through ethnographic research, to reflect on three situations in which social scientists and community liaison officers worked together to ensure successful community engagement. Firstly, a section on "power" considers the pitfalls of considering communities as homogeneous and shows the importance of understanding intra-community power dynamics when engaging communities. Secondly, a section on "fairness" shows how local understandings of what is fair can help inform the design of volunteer recruitment strategies. Finally, a section on "trust" highlights how historically rooted rumours can be effectively addressed through active dialogue rather than through an approach focused on correcting misinformation. The paper firstly emphasises the value of social science in the setting up of clinical trials, in terms of providing an in depth understanding of context and social dynamics. Secondly, the paper suggests the importance of a close collaboration between research and community engagement to effectively confront political and social dynamics, especially in the context of an epidemic.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters 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 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 151 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 26%
Researcher 21 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 13%
Student > Bachelor 16 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 4%
Other 18 12%
Unknown 32 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 39 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 26 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 3%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 40 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 61. 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 20 April 2020.
All research outputs
#377,756
of 16,035,943 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#333
of 11,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,553
of 294,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#39
of 845 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,035,943 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,039 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 294,981 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 845 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.