↓ Skip to main content

How broad are state physician health program descriptions of physician impairment?

Overview of attention for article published in Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
How broad are state physician health program descriptions of physician impairment?
Published in
Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13011-018-0168-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas D. Lawson, J. Wesley Boyd

Abstract

Physician health program websites in 23 states provide many descriptions of possible physician impairment. This study sought to determine whether these descriptions are so broad that almost everyone might potentially be suspected of being impaired given these descriptions. The authors randomly selected 25 descriptions of impairment and then presented them anonymously online to members of the general population in full-time employment through Amazon's Mechanical Turk (N = 199). Half of the respondents randomly received a narrowly worded version, and half received a broadly worded version of the survey questions. In the narrowly worded version of the survey, 70.9% of respondents endorsed at least one description of impairment, and 59.2% endorsed more than one. In the broadly phrased version, 96.9% endorsed at least one description, and 95.8% endorsed more than one. These respondents endorsed a median of 10 out of 25 (40%) descriptions. These findings call into question whether these descriptions really identify persons with poor performance or who pose a high risk of substantial, imminent harm to self or others in the workplace. They also demonstrate the extent to which these descriptions could potentially be misapplied and brand almost anyone as impaired.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 17 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 10%
Psychology 4 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 19 49%
Attention Score in Context

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 12 July 2020.
All research outputs
#3,328,908
of 25,463,724 outputs
Outputs from Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy
#188
of 746 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,694
of 342,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy
#6
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,463,724 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 746 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 342,783 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 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.