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 |
If you can't comply with dialysis, how do you expect me to trust you with transplantation? Australian nephrologists' views on indigenous Australians' 'non-compliance' and their suitability for kidney transplantation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal for Equity in Health, April 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1475-9276-11-21 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kate Anderson, Jeannie Devitt, Joan Cunningham, Cilla Preece, Meg Jardine, Alan Cass |
| Abstract |
Indigenous Australians suffer markedly higher rates of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) but are less likely than their non-Indigenous counterparts to receive a transplant. This difference is not fully explained by measurable clinical differences. Previous work suggests that Indigenous Australian patients may be regarded by treating specialists as 'non-compliers', which may negatively impact on referral for a transplant. However, this decision-making is not well understood. The objectives of this study were to investigate: whether Indigenous patients are commonly characterised as 'non-compliers'; how estimations of patient compliance factor into Australian nephrologists' decision-making about transplant referral; and whether this may pose a particular barrier for Indigenous patients accessing transplants. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Argentina | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 81 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 11% |
| Researcher | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 13 | 15% |
| Unknown | 27 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 11% |
| Psychology | 5 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Unknown | 33 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 15 March 2017.
All research outputs
#4,312,846
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#778
of 2,222 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,263
of 174,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#4
of 14 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 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,222 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 174,273 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.