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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Experts’ opinions on terminology for complementary and integrative medicine – a qualitative study with leading experts
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6882-12-218 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christine Holmberg, Benno Brinkhaus, Claudia Witt |
| Abstract |
Integrative medicine (IM) is currently the most commonly used term to describe the integration of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) into conventional medicine. In the definitions of IM the most important feature is the focus on evidence as crucial factor for therapeutic decision-making. However, there are discussions on the term "integrative medicine" with the most notable critique from within CAM that it describes the integration of complementary methods into conventional institutions and into a "conventional framework of thinking". The aim of this qualitative study was to understand the thoughts of leading experts on IM and on the scientific debate in the field as well as their personal opinions about terminology in general. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 50% |
| Italy | 1 | 17% |
| Canada | 1 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 55 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 17% |
| Researcher | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 19% |
| Unknown | 11 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 12% |
| Psychology | 5 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unknown | 15 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 02 March 2013.
All research outputs
#6,009,470
of 22,685,926 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#965
of 3,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,163
of 179,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#24
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,685,926 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,619 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 179,003 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.