| Title |
Unproven stem cell-based interventions & physicians’ professional obligations; a qualitative study with medical regulatory authorities in Canada
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-15-75 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Amy Zarzeczny, Marianne Clark |
| Abstract |
The pursuit of unproven stem cell-based interventions ("stem cell tourism") is an emerging issue that raises various concerns. Physicians play different roles in this market, many of which engage their legal, ethical and professional obligations. In Canada, physicians are members of a self-regulated profession and their professional regulatory bodies are responsible for regulating the practice of medicine and protecting the public interest. They also provide policy guidance to their members and discipline members for unprofessional conduct. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 10 | 50% |
| United States | 2 | 10% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 10% |
| Germany | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 5 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 45% |
| Scientists | 8 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 15% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 79 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 13% |
| Researcher | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 13 | 16% |
| Unknown | 16 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 21 | 27% |
| Unknown | 18 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 07 April 2019.
All research outputs
#2,407,464
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#257
of 994 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,075
of 256,394 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#4
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 994 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 256,394 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.