↓ Skip to main content

Good Care in Ongoing Dialogue. Improving the Quality of Care Through Moral Deliberation and Responsive Evaluation

Overview of attention for article published in Health Care Analysis, January 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
106 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
Title
Good Care in Ongoing Dialogue. Improving the Quality of Care Through Moral Deliberation and Responsive Evaluation
Published in
Health Care Analysis, January 2009
DOI 10.1007/s10728-008-0102-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tineke A. Abma, Bert Molewijk, Guy A. M. Widdershoven

Abstract

Recently, moral deliberation within care institutions is gaining more attention in medical ethics. Ongoing dialogues about ethical issues are considered as a vehicle for quality improvement of health care practices. The rise of ethical conversation methods can be understood against the broader development within medical ethics in which interaction and dialogue are seen as alternatives for both theoretical or individual reflection on ethical questions. In other disciplines, intersubjectivity is also seen as a way to handle practical problems, and methodologies have emerged to deal with dynamic processes of practice improvement. An example is responsive evaluation. In this article we investigate the relationship between moral deliberation and responsive evaluation, describe their common basis in dialogical ethics and pragmatic hermeneutics, and explore the relevance of both for improving the quality of care. The synergy between the approaches is illustrated by a case example in which both play a distinct and complementary role. It concerns the implementation of quality criteria for coercion in Dutch psychiatry.

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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
New Zealand 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Norway 1 1%
Unknown 64 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 18%
Student > Bachelor 10 15%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Lecturer 5 7%
Other 16 24%
Unknown 8 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 21%
Social Sciences 13 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 13%
Psychology 7 10%
Philosophy 6 9%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 9 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 16 April 2014.
All research outputs
#6,483,718
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Health Care Analysis
#103
of 302 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,123
of 173,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Care Analysis
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 302 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 173,215 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.