↓ Skip to main content

Outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation - the development of an evaluation instrument for clinical ethics support (the Euro-MCD)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation - the development of an evaluation instrument for clinical ethics support (the Euro-MCD)
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, April 2014
DOI 10.1186/1472-6939-15-30
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mia Svantesson, Jan Karlsson, Pierre Boitte, Jan Schildman, Linda Dauwerse, Guy Widdershoven, Reidar Pedersen, Martijn Huisman, Bert Molewijk

Abstract

Clinical ethics support, in particular Moral Case Deliberation, aims to support health care providers to manage ethically difficult situations. However, there is a lack of evaluation instruments regarding outcomes of clinical ethics support in general and regarding Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) in particular. There also is a lack of clarity and consensuses regarding which MCD outcomes are beneficial. In addition, MCD outcomes might be context-sensitive. Against this background, there is a need for a standardised but flexible outcome evaluation instrument. The aim of this study was to develop a multi-contextual evaluation instrument measuring health care providers' experiences and perceived importance of outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 52 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 19%
Lecturer 6 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 9%
Researcher 5 9%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 7 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 15%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Psychology 3 6%
Arts and Humanities 3 6%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 11 21%

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 22 May 2014.
All research outputs
#7,762,781
of 12,373,815 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#431
of 526 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,847
of 191,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#6
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,815 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 526 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 191,200 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.