↓ Skip to main content

Clinical ethics issues in HIV care in Canada: an institutional ethnographic study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
154 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
Clinical ethics issues in HIV care in Canada: an institutional ethnographic study
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12910-017-0171-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chris Kaposy, Nicole R. Greenspan, Zack Marshall, Jill Allison, Shelley Marshall, Cynthia Kitson

Abstract

This is a study involving three HIV clinics in the Canadian provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Manitoba. We sought to identify ethical issues involving health care providers and clinic clients in these settings, and to gain an understanding of how different ethical issues are managed by these groups. We used an institutional ethnographic method to investigate ethical issues in HIV clinics. Our researcher conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews, compiled participant observation notes, and studied health records in order to document ethical issues in the clinics, and to understand how health care providers and clinic clients manage and resolve these issues. We found that health care providers and clinic clients have developed work processes for managing ethical issues of various types: conflicts between client-autonomy and public health priorities ("treatment as prevention"), difficulties associated with the criminalization of nondisclosure of HIV positive status, challenges with non-adherence to HIV treatment, the protection of confidentiality, barriers to treatment access, and negative social determinants of health and well-being. Some ethical issues resulted from structural disadvantages experienced by clinic clients. The most striking findings in our study were the negative social determinants of health and well-being experienced by some clinic clients - such as experiences of violence and trauma, poverty, racism, colonization, homelessness, and other factors affecting well-being such as problematic substance use. These negative determinants were at the root of other ethical issues, and are themselves of ethical concern.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 153 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 20%
Student > Bachelor 22 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Researcher 11 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 4%
Other 20 13%
Unknown 50 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 27 18%
Social Sciences 24 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 12%
Psychology 15 10%
Neuroscience 2 1%
Other 15 10%
Unknown 53 34%
Attention Score in Context

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 31 March 2017.
All research outputs
#6,575,279
of 24,143,470 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#559
of 1,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,839
of 427,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#11
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,143,470 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 1,033 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. 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 427,429 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 71% 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 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.