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 concerns with the use of intelligent assistive technology: findings from a qualitative study with professional stakeholders
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, December 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12910-019-0437-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tenzin Wangmo, Mirjam Lipps, Reto W. Kressig, Marcello Ienca |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 | 2 | 22% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 11% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 11% |
| United States | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 3 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 11% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 286 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 286 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 32 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 8% |
| Researcher | 16 | 6% |
| Lecturer | 11 | 4% |
| Other | 57 | 20% |
| Unknown | 117 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 32 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 18 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 14 | 5% |
| Other | 58 | 20% |
| Unknown | 118 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 13 January 2020.
All research outputs
#5,465,341
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#527
of 1,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,838
of 482,859 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#21
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,116 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 482,859 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.