| Title |
How psychotherapists handle treatment errors – an ethical analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-14-50 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Irina Medau, Ralf J Jox, Stella Reiter-Theil |
| Abstract |
Dealing with errors in psychotherapy is challenging, both ethically and practically. There is almost no empirical research on this topic. We aimed (1) to explore psychotherapists' self-reported ways of dealing with an error made by themselves or by colleagues, and (2) to reconstruct their reasoning according to the two principle-based ethical approaches that are dominant in the ethics discourse of psychotherapy, Beauchamp & Childress (B&C) and Lindsay et al. (L). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 33 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 9 | 26% |
| Unknown | 5 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 13 | 38% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 15% |
| Philosophy | 3 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 18% |
| Unknown | 5 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 31 May 2023.
All research outputs
#14,264,131
of 24,350,163 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#744
of 1,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,924
of 317,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#15
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,350,163 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,048 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 317,261 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.