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 |
Heed or disregard a cancer patient’s critical blogging? An experimental study of two different framing strategies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12910-016-0115-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Niels Lynøe, Sara NattochDag, Magnus Lindskog, Niklas Juth |
| Abstract |
We have examined healthcare staff attitudes of toward a blogging cancer patient who publishes critical posts about her treatment and their possible effect on patient-staff relationships and treatment decisions. We used two versions of a questionnaire containing a vignette based on a modified real case involving a 39-year-old cancer patient who complained on her blog about how she was encountered and the treatment she received. Initially she was not offered a new, and expensive treatment, which might have influenced her perception of further encounters. In one version of the vignette, the team decides to put extra effort into both encounters and offers the expensive new cancer treatment. In the other version, the team decides to follow the clinic's routine to the letter. Subsequently, blog postings became either positive or negative in tone. We also divided participants into value-neutral and value-influenced groups (regarding personal values) by asking how their trust in healthcare would be affected if the team's suggestion were followed. A total of 56 % (95 % CI: 51-61) of the respondents faced with a team decision to 'do something-extra' in encounters would act in accordance with this ambition. Concerning treatment, 32 % (95 % CI: 28-38) would follow the team's decision to offer a new and expensive treatment. A large majority of those who received the "follow-routine" version agreed to do so in encountering [94 % (95 % CI: 91-97)]. Similar proportions were found regarding treatment [86 % (95 % CI: 82-90)]. A total of 83 % (95 % CI: 76-91) of the value-neutral participants who received the "do-something-extra" version stated that they would act as the team suggested regarding encounters, while 57 % (95 % CI: 47-67) would do so in regard to treatment. Among the value-influenced participants who received the "do-something-extra" version, 45 % (95 % CI: 38-51) stated that they would make an extra effort to accommodate the patient and her needs, while the proportion for treatment was 22 % (95 % CI: 16-27). Among those who had received the "follow-routine" version, a large majority agreed, and no difference was indicated between the value-neutral and the value-influenced participants. The present study indicates that healthcare staff is indeed influenced by reading a patient's critical blog entries, largely regarding encounters, but also concerning treatment is concerned. Value-neutral healthcare personnel seem to exhibit a pragmatic attitude and be more inclined to heed and respond to a patient whose criticism may well be warranted. The study also indicates that healthcare staff is partly positive or negative to future blogging patients depending on how the issue has been framed. For future research we suggest as a bold hypothesis that the phrase "clinical routine" might conceal power aspects masquerading as adopted ethical principles. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 | 6 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 48 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 12% |
| Researcher | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 14 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 18% |
| Psychology | 5 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 24% |
| Unknown | 13 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 21 March 2021.
All research outputs
#7,237,809
of 22,873,031 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#600
of 994 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,127
of 333,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#9
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,873,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 994 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 333,293 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 64% 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 is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.