↓ Skip to main content

Perceptions of the general public and physicians regarding open disclosure in Korea: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
Title
Perceptions of the general public and physicians regarding open disclosure in Korea: a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12910-016-0134-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Minsu Ock, Hyun Joo Kim, Min-Woo Jo, Sang-il Lee

Abstract

Experience with open disclosure and its study are restricted to certain western countries. In addition, there are concerns that open disclosure may be less suitable in non-western countries. The present study explored and compared the in-depth perceptions of the general public and physicians regarding open disclosure in Korea. We applied the COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) checklist to this qualitative study. We conducted 20 in-depth interviews and four focus group discussions with 16 physicians and 18 members of the general public. In-depth interviews and focus group discussions were performed according to semi-structured guidelines developed according to a systematic review of open disclosure. We conducted a directed content analysis by analyzing the verbatim transcripts and field notes in accordance with the predetermined guidelines. Open disclosure perceptions were summarized in terms of the "five Ws and one H" (who, what, where, when, why, and how). All physician and general public participants acknowledged the normative justifiability of open disclosure. The participants mostly agreed on the known effects of open disclosure, but the physicians had negative opinions on its expected effects, such as decreased intention of the general public to file lawsuits and increased credibility of medical professionals. Generally, the participants thought that open disclosure is required for medical errors causing major harm. However, the physicians and general public had conflicting opinions on the need for open disclosure of near misses. Most physicians did not know how to conduct open disclosure and some physicians had bad experiences due to inappropriate or incomplete open disclosure. Physicians and the general public in Korea acknowledge the need for open disclosure. Guidelines according to the type of patient safety incident are required to encourage physicians to more readily conduct open disclosure. Furthermore, hospitals need to consider organizing a dedicated team and hiring experts for open disclosure.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 20%
Student > Master 7 16%
Researcher 4 9%
Lecturer 2 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 13 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 13 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 24 August 2016.
All research outputs
#13,986,767
of 22,883,326 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#734
of 993 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,299
of 343,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#15
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,883,326 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 993 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 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 343,760 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.