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 |
The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: a pluralogue. Part 4: general conclusion
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, December 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1747-5341-7-14 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
James Phillips, Allen Frances, Michael A Cerullo, John Chardavoyne, Hannah S Decker, Michael B First, Nassir Ghaemi, Gary Greenberg, Andrew C Hinderliter, Warren A Kinghorn, Steven G LoBello, Elliott B Martin, Aaron L Mishara, Joel Paris, Joseph M Pierre, Ronald W Pies, Harold A Pincus, Douglas Porter, Claire Pouncey, Michael A Schwartz, Thomas Szasz, Jerome C Wakefield, G Scott Waterman, Owen Whooley, Peter Zachar |
| Abstract |
In the conclusion to this multi-part article I first review the discussions carried out around the six essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis - the position taken by Allen Frances on each question, the commentaries on the respective question along with Frances' responses to the commentaries, and my own view of the multiple discussions. In this review I emphasize that the core question is the first - what is the nature of psychiatric illness - and that in some manner all further questions follow from the first. Following this review I attempt to move the discussion forward, addressing the first question from the perspectives of natural kind analysis and complexity analysis. This reflection leads toward a view of psychiatric disorders - and future nosologies - as far more complex and uncertain than we have imagined. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 27% |
| Spain | 1 | 9% |
| Nepal | 1 | 9% |
| Mexico | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 5 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 73% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 18% |
| Scientists | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Norway | 1 | 1% |
| Sweden | 1 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 75 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 15% |
| Researcher | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 12% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Professor | 9 | 11% |
| Other | 20 | 24% |
| Unknown | 10 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 37 | 45% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 22% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 12 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 03 November 2018.
All research outputs
#5,329,396
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#123
of 234 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,159
of 288,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 234 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 288,536 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.