| Title |
Disaster zones—should we be clowning around?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Pediatrics, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00431-017-3018-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Uri Ilan, Avigail Davidov, Joseph Mendlovic, Giora Weiser |
| Abstract |
Medical clowns have an important role in helping patients cope with their pain and distress. This is especially true in the pediatric population. However, their activity in a disaster area is unheard of. Following the Nepal earthquake in 2015, the Israeli field hospital set up in Kathmandu, Nepal was joined by five volunteer medical clowns. They were active in all parts of the field hospital. Following the hospital's activity, an online questionnaire was sent to the field hospital members to assess the impact of medical clowning on the hospital in general and its members' individual performance. Physicians and nurses found that medical clowning had a positive impact both generally and personally. (65.4 and 78.3% respectively on general impact.) Personnel that were not previously exposed to medical clowning also found them to have a positive impact; however, they were less likely to view it as impacting their personal performance. Medical teams in disaster areas may benefit from the presence of medical clowns. What is known about this topic: • Medical clowns are used for alleviation and distraction in painful and distressful medical procedures and treatments. Its positive effect on patients, and their families are well established. • This is the first description of medical clowning in a disaster area. In addition, the impact of medical clowning on the medical staff working in a disaster area is evaluated. No previous studies have explored the impact of medical clowns on the medical staff. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 14% |
| Spain | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 5 | 71% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 29% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 67 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 27% |
| Unknown | 17 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 16% |
| Psychology | 7 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 18 | 27% |
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 02 June 2018.
All research outputs
#13,059,047
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Pediatrics
#2,246
of 3,756 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,811
of 318,610 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Pediatrics
#38
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,756 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 318,610 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.