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 wizard behind the curtain: programmers as providers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13010-016-0038-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mark A. Graber, Olivia Bailey |
| Abstract |
It is almost universally accepted that traditional provider-patient relationships should be governed, at least in part, by the ethical principles set forth by Beauchamp and Childress (Beauchamp and Childress, Principles of biomedical ethics, 1979). These principles include autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice (Beauchamp and Childress, Principles of biomedical ethics, 1979). Recently, however, the nature of medial practice has changed. The pervasive presence of computer technology in medicine raises interesting ethical questions. In this paper we argue that some software designers should be considered health care providers and thus be subject the ethical principles incumbent upon "traditional" providers. We argue that these ethical responsibilities should be applied explicitly rather than as a passive, implicit, set of guidelines. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 11 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 36% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 18% |
| Researcher | 2 | 18% |
| Other | 1 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 1 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 27% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 18% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 1 | 9% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 May 2017.
All research outputs
#2,680,563
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#77
of 218 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,139
of 369,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 218 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 369,695 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them