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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The Norwegian national project for ethics support in community health and care services
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12910-016-0158-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Morten Magelssen, Elisabeth Gjerberg, Reidar Pedersen, Reidun Førde, Lillian Lillemoen |
| Abstract |
Internationally, clinical ethics support has yet to be implemented systematically in community health and care services. A large-scale Norwegian project (2007-2015) attempted to increase ethical competence in community services through facilitating the implementation of ethics support activities in 241 Norwegian municipalities. The article describes the ethics project and the ethics activities that ensued. The article first gives an account of the Norwegian ethics project. Then the results of two online questionnaires are reported, characterizing the scope, activities and organization of the ethics activities in the Norwegian municipalities and the ethical topics addressed. One hundred and thirty-seven municipal contact persons answered the first survey (55 % response rate), whereas 217 ethics facilitators from 48 municipalities responded to the second (33 % response rate). The Norwegian ethics project is vast in scope, yet has focused on some institutions and professions (e.g., nursing homes, home-based care; nurses, nurses' aides, unskilled workers) whilst seldom reaching others (e.g., child and adolescent health care; physicians). Patients and next of kin were very seldom involved. Through the ethics project employees discussed many important ethical challenges, in particular related to patient autonomy, competence to consent, and cooperation with next of kin. The "ethics reflection group" was the most common venue for ethics deliberation. The Norwegian project is the first of its kind and scope, and other countries may learn from the Norwegian experiences. Professionals have discussed central ethical dilemmas, the handling of which arguably makes a difference for patients/users and service quality. The study indicates that large (national) scale implementation of CES structures for the municipal health and care services is complex, yet feasible. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 60 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 22 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 24 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 November 2016.
All research outputs
#18,483,671
of 22,903,988 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#895
of 994 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,900
of 312,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#17
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,903,988 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 994 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 312,900 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.