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 |
Developing public health ethics learning modules – can we learn from critical pedagogy?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Public Health Reviews, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40985-015-0006-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jutta Lindert, Christopher Potter |
| Abstract |
Curriculum development in masters of public health programs that effectively meets the complex ethical challenges of the 21st century is an important part of public health education and requires ethical reasoning and purposively thinking. Current master programs in Public Health do not regularly include modules in public health ethics. The aim of this paper is to present background and theoretical foundation for developing a methodology and methods to develop public health ethics modules for curriculum development in public health programs. We describe ethical reasoning in medicine and in Public Health, specify pedagogical approaches and key assignments organized around the critical pedagogy. |
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 States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 70 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 30 | 43% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 16% |
| Unknown | 8 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 19% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 12 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 10% |
| Chemistry | 7 | 10% |
| Other | 16 | 23% |
| Unknown | 8 | 11% |
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 10 May 2016.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Public Health Reviews
#257
of 278 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,334
of 279,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Public Health Reviews
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 278 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 279,604 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.