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 |
Conscientious objection to referrals for abortion: pragmatic solution or threat to women’s rights?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-15-15 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eva M Kibsgaard Nordberg, Helge Skirbekk, Morten Magelssen |
| Abstract |
Conscientious objection has spurred impassioned debate in many Western countries. Some Norwegian general practitioners (GPs) refuse to refer for abortion. Little is know about how the GPs carry out their refusals in practice, how they perceive their refusal to fit with their role as professionals, and how refusals impact patients. Empirical data can inform subsequent normative analysis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Colombia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 76 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 12% |
| Researcher | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 14% |
| Unknown | 16 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 31% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 8% |
| Philosophy | 6 | 8% |
| Arts and Humanities | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Unknown | 20 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 27 February 2014.
All research outputs
#14,647,929
of 22,745,803 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#776
of 990 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,970
of 221,189 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#18
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,745,803 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 990 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 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 221,189 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.