| Title |
Ethical Issues in the Design and Implementation of Population Health Programs
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-017-4234-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matthew DeCamp, Daniel Pomerantz, Kamala Cotts, Elizabeth Dzeng, Neil Farber, Lisa Lehmann, P. Preston Reynolds, Lois Snyder Sulmasy, Jon Tilburt |
| Abstract |
Spurred on by recent health care reforms and the Triple Aim's goals of improving population health outcomes, reducing health care costs, and improving the patient experience of care, emphasis on population health is increasing throughout medicine. Population health has the potential to improve patient care and health outcomes for individual patients. However, specific population health activities may not be in every patient's best interest in every circumstance, which can create ethical tensions for individual physicians and other health care professionals. Because individual medical professionals remain committed primarily to the best interests of individual patients, physicians have a unique role to play in ensuring population health supports this ethical obligation. Using widely recognized principles of medical ethics-nonmaleficence/beneficence, respect for persons, and justice-this article describes the ethical issues that may arise in contemporary population health programs and how to manage them. Attending to these principles will improve the design and implementation of population health programs and help maintain trust in the medical profession. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 | 10 | 67% |
| Unknown | 5 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 53% |
| Scientists | 4 | 27% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 61 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Researcher | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 24 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 15% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 5% |
| Engineering | 3 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 25 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 16 June 2023.
All research outputs
#2,001,463
of 25,658,139 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,512
of 8,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,913
of 447,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#30
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,658,139 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,233 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 447,931 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 114 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.