↓ Skip to main content

Ethical aspects of directly observed treatment for tuberculosis: a cross-cultural comparison

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
150 Mendeley
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.
Title
Ethical aspects of directly observed treatment for tuberculosis: a cross-cultural comparison
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, July 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6939-14-25
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mette Sagbakken, Jan C Frich, Gunnar A Bjune, John DH Porter

Abstract

Tuberculosis is a major global public health challenge, and a majority of countries have adopted a version of the global strategy to fight Tuberculosis, Directly Observed Treatment, Short Course (DOTS). Drawing on results from research in Ethiopia and Norway, the aim of this paper is to highlight and discuss ethical aspects of the practice of Directly Observed Treatment (DOT) in a cross-cultural perspective.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sierra Leone 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 147 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 27 18%
Student > Master 24 16%
Researcher 21 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 8%
Student > Postgraduate 11 7%
Other 28 19%
Unknown 27 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 14%
Social Sciences 12 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 3%
Other 22 15%
Unknown 29 19%

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 08 December 2014.
All research outputs
#3,006,614
of 21,732,065 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#332
of 940 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,281
of 174,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,732,065 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 940 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 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 174,074 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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