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 |
An Ethical Framework for the Management of Pain in the Emergency Department
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Academic Emergency Medicine, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1111/acem.12158 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Arvind Venkat, Christian Fromm, Eric Isaacs, Jordan Ibarra, SAEM Ethics Committee |
| Abstract |
Pain is a ubiquitous problem, affecting more than 100 million individuals in the United States chronically and many more in the acute setting. Up to three-quarters of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) report pain as a key component of their reasons for requiring acute care. While pain management is a fundamental component of emergency medicine (EM), there are numerous attitudinal and structural barriers that have been identified to effectively providing pain control in the ED. Coupled with public demands and administrative mandates, concerns surrounding ED pain management have reached a crisis level that should be considered an ethical issue in the profession of EM. In this article, the authors propose an ethical framework based on a combination of virtue, narrative, and relationship theories that can be used to address the clinical dilemmas that arise in managing pain in ED patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 | 4 | 80% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 60% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 63 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Researcher | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 16 | 25% |
| Unknown | 12 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 42% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 17% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 14 | 22% |
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 11 February 2015.
All research outputs
#8,187,031
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Academic Emergency Medicine
#2,095
of 3,734 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,023
of 206,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Academic Emergency Medicine
#28
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 3,734 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.3. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 206,377 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.