| Title |
Family Caregivers, Patients and Physicians: Ethical Guidance to Optimize Relationships
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, January 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-009-1206-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sheryl Mitnick, Cathy Leffler, Virginia L. Hood, for the American College of Physicians Ethics, Professionalism and Human Rights Committee |
| Abstract |
Family caregivers play a major role in maximizing the health and quality of life of more than 30 million individuals with acute and chronic illness. Patients depend on family caregivers for assistance with daily activities, managing complex care, navigating the health care system, and communicating with health care professionals. Physical, emotional and financial stress may increase caregiver vulnerability to injury and illness. Geographically distant family caregivers and health professionals in the role of family caregivers may suffer additional burdens. Physician recognition of the value of the caregiver role may contribute to a positive caregiving experience and decrease rates of patient hospitalization and institutionalization. However, physicians may face ethical challenges in partnering with patients and family caregivers while preserving the primacy of the patient-physician relationship. The American College of Physicians in conjunction with ten other professional societies offers ethical guidance to physicians in developing mutually supportive patient-physician-caregiver relationships. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| South Africa | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 177 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 2% |
| Brazil | 2 | 1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 165 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 27 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 21 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 15 | 8% |
| Other | 51 | 29% |
| Unknown | 24 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 67 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 23 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 21 | 12% |
| Psychology | 13 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 21 | 12% |
| Unknown | 25 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 29 November 2023.
All research outputs
#2,372,982
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,788
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,771
of 169,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#6
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 169,745 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.