↓ Skip to main content

Misuse of emergent healthcare in contemporary Japan

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Emergency Medicine, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Misuse of emergent healthcare in contemporary Japan
Published in
BMC Emergency Medicine, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12873-017-0135-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yasuhiro Kadooka, Atsushi Asai, Aya Enzo, Taketoshi Okita

Abstract

Medical care is obviously an important public service to ensure the health of a nation; however, medical resources are not always used appropriately. 'Convenience-store consultations' and inappropriate ambulance transportation represent instances of such improper use by contemporary Japanese citizens in recent years. This article illustrates two examples of misuse and discusses potential countermeasures by considering factors contributing to these behaviours. From both public and medical perspectives, these patient behaviours are problematic, causing potential harm to others, negative consequences to such patients themselves, exhaustion of healthcare staff, and breakdown of emergency medical services. Although citizens need to recognize the public nature and scarcity of medical care, the more immediate need may be to identify and to remove personal and social causes inducing such misuse. In addition, healthcare professionals should become more trustworthy. To combat these issues, one-sided penalties such as accusations or sanctions for patients who misuse the system cannot be justified in principle. If measures taken to prevent misuse are ineffective, imposing surcharges or restricting consultations may be considered official policy, but these are not acceptable for several reasons. For now, we conclude that we must rely on the spontaneous motivation of patients who engage in 'convenience-store consultations' and ambulance transportation instead of taking a taxi.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 27%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 18%
Student > Master 2 9%
Other 1 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 7 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 7 32%
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 06 March 2018.
All research outputs
#6,562,222
of 24,823,556 outputs
Outputs from BMC Emergency Medicine
#324
of 843 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,834
of 317,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Emergency Medicine
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,823,556 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 843 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 317,578 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.