↓ Skip to main content

Ethics review: 'Living wills' and intensive care – an overview of the American experience

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, July 2007
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 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
Ethics review: 'Living wills' and intensive care – an overview of the American experience
Published in
Critical Care, July 2007
DOI 10.1186/cc5945
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew RJ Tillyard

Abstract

Withdrawal and limitation of life support in the intensive care unit is common, although how this decision is reached can be varied and arbitrary. Inevitably, the patient is unable to participate in this discussion because their capacity is limited by the nature of the illness and the effects of its treatment. Physicians often discuss these decisions with relatives in an attempt to respect the patient's wishes despite evidence suggesting that the relatives may not correctly reflect the patient's desires. Advance decisions, commonly known as 'living wills', have been proposed as a way of facilitating the maintenance of an individual's autonomy when they become incapacitated. Others have argued that legalising advance decisions is euthanasia by the back door. In October 2007 in England and Wales, advance decisions will become legally binding as part of the 2005 Mental Capacity Act. This has been the case in the USA for many years. The purpose of the present review is to examine the published literature regarding the effect of advance decisions in relation to the provision of adult critical care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Unknown 85 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 16%
Researcher 11 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 6 7%
Other 28 32%
Unknown 15 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Psychology 6 7%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 15 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 12 April 2016.
All research outputs
#1,735,503
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,530
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,277
of 78,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#1
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 78,816 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 24 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.