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 |
Trust increases euthanasia acceptance: a multilevel analysis using the European Values Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-15-86 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vanessa Köneke |
| Abstract |
This study tests how various kinds of trust impact attitudes toward euthanasia among the general public. The indication that trust might have an impact on euthanasia attitudes is based on the slippery slope argument, which asserts that allowing euthanasia might lead to abuses and involuntary deaths. Adopting this argument usually leads to less positive attitudes towards euthanasia. Tying in with this, it is assumed here that greater trust diminishes such slippery slope fears, and thereby increases euthanasia acceptance. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 109 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 11% |
| Researcher | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 18 | 16% |
| Unknown | 34 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 18 | 16% |
| Psychology | 18 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Unknown | 35 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 18 March 2021.
All research outputs
#13,418,835
of 22,775,504 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#699
of 993 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#173,160
of 353,184 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#12
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,775,504 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 993 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 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 353,184 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.