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 |
WHO-definition of health must be enforced by national law: a debate
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, June 2013
|
DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-14-24 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Marion Habersack, Gero Luschin |
Abstract |
On its establishment, the World Health Organization (WHO) defined health as a fundamental human right deserving legal protection. Subsequently, the Ottawa Charter reaffirmed health as a fundamental right, and emphasized health promotion as the most appropriate response to global health issues. Here we suggest that the WHO definition of health as more than simply the absence of illness is not normative, and therefore requires standardization. To date such standardization unfortunately is lacking. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 | 4 | 25% |
Australia | 4 | 25% |
United States | 1 | 6% |
Switzerland | 1 | 6% |
Unknown | 6 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 9 | 56% |
Scientists | 4 | 25% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 13% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
Malaysia | 1 | 1% |
United States | 1 | 1% |
Nigeria | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 83 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 15 | 17% |
Student > Master | 11 | 13% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 11% |
Researcher | 9 | 10% |
Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 8% |
Other | 16 | 18% |
Unknown | 20 | 23% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 24% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 10% |
Social Sciences | 9 | 10% |
Psychology | 6 | 7% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
Other | 16 | 18% |
Unknown | 24 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 12 October 2020.
All research outputs
#3,810,024
of 25,464,544 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#405
of 1,107 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,721
of 209,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#6
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,464,544 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,107 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 209,614 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 84% 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. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.