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 |
Comparison of ethical judgments exhibited by clients and ethics consultants in Japan
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, March 2014
|
DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-15-19 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Noriko Nagao, Yasuhiro Kadooka, Atsushi Asai |
Abstract |
Healthcare professionals must make decisions for patients based on ethical considerations. However, they rely on clinical ethics consultations (CEC) to review ethical justifications of their decisions. CEC consultants support the cases reviewed and guide medical care. When both healthcare professionals and CEC consultants face ethical problems in medical care, how is their judgment derived? How do medical judgments differ from the ethical considerations of CECs? This study examines CECs in Japan to identify differences in the ethical judgment of clients and CEC consultants. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Germany | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 50 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 9 | 18% |
Researcher | 8 | 16% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 10% |
Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
Other | 4 | 8% |
Other | 10 | 20% |
Unknown | 10 | 20% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 24% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 20% |
Social Sciences | 4 | 8% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 4% |
Other | 6 | 12% |
Unknown | 14 | 28% |
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 10 March 2014.
All research outputs
#18,366,246
of 22,747,498 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#893
of 990 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,892
of 221,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#23
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,747,498 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 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 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 221,286 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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.