| Title |
“With Human Health It’s a Global Thing”: Canadian Perspectives on Ethics in the Global Governance of an Influenza Pandemic
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, February 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11673-014-9593-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alison K. Thompson, Maxwell J. Smith, Christopher W. McDougall, Cécile Bensimon, Daniel Felipe Perez |
| Abstract |
We live in an era where our health is linked to that of others across the globe, and nothing brings this home better than the specter of a pandemic. This paper explores the findings of town hall meetings associated with the Canadian Program of Research on Ethics in a Pandemic (CanPREP), in which focus groups met to discuss issues related to the global governance of an influenza pandemic. Two competing discourses were found to be at work: the first was based upon an economic rationality and the second upon a humanitarian rationality. The implications for public support and the long-term sustainability of new global norms, networks, and regulations in global public health are discussed. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 72 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 12% |
| Researcher | 8 | 11% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 15% |
| Unknown | 24 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 5% |
| Psychology | 4 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 18 | 25% |
| Unknown | 26 | 36% |
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 27 October 2016.
All research outputs
#20,259,845
of 22,789,566 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#567
of 599 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#301,284
of 357,823 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#16
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,789,566 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 599 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 357,823 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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.