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 |
Context and scale: Distinctions for improving debates about physician “rationing”
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13010-017-0048-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jon C. Tilburt, Daniel P. Sulmasy |
| Abstract |
Important discussions about limiting care based on professional judgment often devolve into heated debates over the place of physicians in bedside rationing. Politics, loaded rhetoric, and ideological caricature from both sides of the rationing debate obscure precise points of disagreement and consensus, and hinder critical dialogue around the obligations and boundaries of professional practice. We propose a way forward by reframing the rationing conversation, distinguishing between the scale of the decision (macro vs. micro) and its context (ordinary allocation vs. extraordinary re-allocation) avoiding the word "rationing." We propose to shift the terminology, using specific, descriptive words to defuse conflict and re-focus the debate towards substantive issues. These distinctions can clarify the real ethical differences at stake and facilitate a more constructive conversation about the clinical and social responsibilities of physicians to use resources ethically at the bedside and their role in allocating medical resources at a societal level. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 States | 3 | 50% |
| Ireland | 2 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 38% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 19% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Researcher | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 50% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 19% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Engineering | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 19 October 2020.
All research outputs
#2,777,285
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#83
of 219 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,318
of 315,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 219 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 315,948 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.