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 |
Ethical complexities of screening for depression and intimate partner violence (IPV) in intervention studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, November 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2458-11-s5-s3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Victoria J Palmer, Jane S Yelland, Angela J Taft |
| Abstract |
Intervention studies for depression and intimate partner violence (IPV) commonly incorporate screening to identify eligible participants. The challenge is that current ethical evaluation is largely informed by the four principle approach applying principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, and respect for justice and autonomy. We examine three intervention studies for IPV, postnatal depression (PND) and depression that used screening from the perspective of principlism, followed by the perspective of a narrative and relational approach. We suggest that a narrative and relational approach to ethics brings to light concerns that principlism can overlook. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 105 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 16% |
| Researcher | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 22 | 20% |
| Unknown | 25 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 24% |
| Psychology | 22 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 9% |
| Unknown | 27 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 24 January 2013.
All research outputs
#2,863,989
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#3,541
of 17,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,592
of 246,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#32
of 219 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,512 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 246,059 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 219 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.