↓ Skip to main content

Bioethical differences between drug addiction treatment professionals inside and outside the Russian Federation

Overview of attention for article published in Harm Reduction Journal, June 2011
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 (90th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Bioethical differences between drug addiction treatment professionals inside and outside the Russian Federation
Published in
Harm Reduction Journal, June 2011
DOI 10.1186/1477-7517-8-15
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vladimir D Mendelevich

Abstract

This article provides an overview of a sociological study of the views of 338 drug addiction treatment professionals. A comparison is drawn between the bioethical approaches of Russian and foreign experts from 18 countries. It is concluded that the bioethical priorities of Russian and foreign experts differ significantly. Differences involve attitudes toward confidentiality, informed consent, compulsory treatment, opioid agonist therapy, mandatory testing of students for psychoactive substances, the prevention of mental patients from having children, harm reduction programs (needle and syringe exchange), euthanasia, and abortion. It is proposed that the cardinal dissimilarity between models for providing drug treatment in the Russian Federation versus the majority of the countries of the world stems from differing bioethical attitudes among drug addiction treatment experts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 32 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 21%
Student > Bachelor 6 18%
Researcher 5 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Other 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 6 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 18%
Psychology 5 15%
Social Sciences 5 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 8 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 13 December 2018.
All research outputs
#2,542,639
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Harm Reduction Journal
#381
of 1,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,738
of 125,097 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Harm Reduction Journal
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,119 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 125,097 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.