↓ Skip to main content

Discourse on medicine: meditative and calculative approaches to ethics from an international perspective

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#30 of 203)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
6 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Discourse on medicine: meditative and calculative approaches to ethics from an international perspective
Published in
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1747-5341-9-18
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Malloy, Ronald Martin, Thomas Hadjistavropoulos, Peilai Liu, Elizabeth McCarthy, Ilhyeok Park, N Shalani, Masaaki Murakami, Suchat Paholpak

Abstract

Heidegger's two modes of thinking, calculative and meditative, were used as the thematic basis for this qualitative study of physicians from seven countries (Canada, China, India, Ireland, Japan, Korea, & Thailand). Focus groups were conducted in each country with 69 physicians who cared for the elderly. Results suggest that physicians perceived ethical issues primarily through the lens of calculative thinking (76%) with emphasis on economic concerns. Meditative responses represented 24% of the statements and were mostly generated by Canadian physicians whose patients typically were not faced with economic barriers to treatment due to Canada's universal health care system.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 4%
Unknown 24 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 36%
Student > Master 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 4 16%
Unknown 5 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 32%
Social Sciences 5 20%
Psychology 2 8%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Philosophy 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 2020.
All research outputs
#1,303,497
of 18,990,581 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#30
of 203 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,370
of 248,720 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,990,581 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 203 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 248,720 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
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. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.