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 |
How experience makes a difference: practitioners’ views on the use of deferred consent in paediatric and neonatal emergency care trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, November 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-14-45 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kerry Woolfall, Lucy Frith, Carrol Gamble, Bridget Young |
| Abstract |
In 2008 UK legislation was amended to enable the use of deferred consent for paediatric emergency care (EC) trials in recognition of the practical and ethical difficulties of obtaining prospective consent in an emergency situation. However, ambiguity about how to make deferred consent acceptable to parents, children and practitioners remains. In particular, little is known about practitioners' views and experiences of seeking deferred consent in this setting. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Peru | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 130 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 13% |
| Researcher | 14 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 24 | 18% |
| Unknown | 37 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 8% |
| Psychology | 8 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 16 | 12% |
| Unknown | 40 | 30% |
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 30 April 2015.
All research outputs
#17,741,776
of 22,783,848 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#878
of 993 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,911
of 215,755 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#18
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,783,848 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 215,755 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.