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 |
Introduction to the article collection ‘Translation in healthcare: ethical, legal, and social implications’
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12910-016-0157-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael Morrison, Donna Dickenson, Sandra Soo-Jin Lee |
| Abstract |
New technologies are transforming and reconfiguring the boundaries between patients, research participants and consumers, between research and clinical practice, and between public and private domains. From personalised medicine to big data and social media, these platforms facilitate new kinds of interactions, challenge longstanding understandings of privacy and consent, and raise fundamental questions about how the translational patient pathway should be organised.This editorial introduces the cross-journal article collection "Translation in healthcare: ethical, legal, and social implications", briefly outlining the genesis of the collection in the 2015 Translation in healthcare conference in Oxford, UK and providing an introduction to the contemporary ethical challenges of translational research in biology and medicine accompanied by a summary of the papers included in this collection. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 2 | 25% |
| Australia | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 63% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 63% |
| Scientists | 2 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 70 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 16% |
| Researcher | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 17 | 24% |
| Unknown | 18 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 20% |
| Psychology | 5 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 21 | 30% |
| Unknown | 21 | 30% |
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 December 2016.
All research outputs
#7,120,684
of 25,721,020 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#606
of 1,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,722
of 314,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#11
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,721,020 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,117 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 314,232 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 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.