| Title |
Consumer-driven and commercialised practice in dentistry: an ethical and professional problem?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11019-018-9834-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
A. C. L. Holden |
| Abstract |
The rise and persistence of a commercial model of healthcare and the potential shift towards the commodification of dental services, provided to consumers, should provoke thought about the nature and purpose of dentistry and whether this paradigm is cause for concern. Within this article, whether dentistry is a commodity and the legitimacy of dentistry as a business is explored and assessed. Dentistry is perceived to be a commodity, dependent upon the context of how services are to be provided and the interpretation of the patient-professional relationship. Commercially-focused practices threaten the fiduciary nature of the interaction between consumer and provider. The solution to managing commercial elements within dentistry is not through rejection of the new paradigm of the consumer of dental services, but in the rejection of competitive practices, coercive advertising and the erosion of professional values and duty. Consumerism may bring empowerment to those accessing dental services. However, if the patient-practitioner relationship is reduced to a mere transaction in the name of enhanced consumer participation, this empowerment is but a myth. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 Kingdom | 5 | 28% |
| Australia | 4 | 22% |
| Norway | 2 | 11% |
| Canada | 2 | 11% |
| India | 1 | 6% |
| Ireland | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 3 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 56% |
| Scientists | 7 | 39% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 68 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 27 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 37% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 3% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 27 | 40% |
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 01 February 2020.
All research outputs
#2,490,920
of 24,309,087 outputs
Outputs from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#74
of 619 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,126
of 335,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,309,087 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 619 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 335,869 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.