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 |
Screening for depression in medical research: ethical challenges and recommendations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-14-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aisling M Sheehan, Hannah McGee |
| Abstract |
Due to the important role of depression in major illnesses, screening measures for depression are commonly used in medical research. The protocol for managing participants with positive screens is unclear and raises ethical concerns. The aim of this article is to identify and critically discuss the ethical issues that arise when a positive screen for depression is detected, and offer some guidance on managing these issues. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 | 43% |
| Ireland | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 29% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 4% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 64 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 19% |
| Researcher | 11 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 22% |
| Unknown | 15 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 18 | 26% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Unknown | 20 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 29 January 2013.
All research outputs
#7,622,789
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#624
of 1,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,199
of 287,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#9
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,009 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 287,504 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.