| Title |
Ethical challenges in connection with the use of coercion: a focus group study of health care personnel in mental health care
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-15-82 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marit Helene Hem, Bert Molewijk, Reidar Pedersen |
| Abstract |
In recent years, the attention on the use of coercion in mental health care has increased. The use of coercion is common and controversial, and involves many complex ethical challenges. The research question in this study was: What kind of ethical challenges related to the use of coercion do health care practitioners face in their daily clinical work? |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 131 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 24 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 14% |
| Researcher | 12 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 9% |
| Other | 11 | 8% |
| Other | 28 | 21% |
| Unknown | 27 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 22 | 17% |
| Psychology | 17 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 15 | 11% |
| Unknown | 34 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 05 December 2014.
All research outputs
#18,385,510
of 22,772,779 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#896
of 993 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#261,280
of 360,775 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#17
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,772,779 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 993 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 360,775 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.