↓ Skip to main content

Supporting ethical use of electronic monitoring for people living with dementia: Social work’s role in assessment, decision-making, and review

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Gerontological Social Work, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Supporting ethical use of electronic monitoring for people living with dementia: Social work’s role in assessment, decision-making, and review
Published in
Journal of Gerontological Social Work, February 2018
DOI 10.1080/01634372.2018.1433738
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eleanor Bantry-White

Abstract

Walking outdoors supports health and well-being but some people living with dementia are at increased risk of getting lost and of harm while missing. Electronic monitoring can potentially play an important preventative role by enabling the person's location to be continuously monitored by caregivers. However, there are considerable ethical concerns arising from electronic monitoring. This paper explores these thematically, drawing attention to its implications for autonomy and liberty; privacy; dignity; the rights and needs of caregivers and families; beneficence and non-maleficence. Following from this, key questions for consideration in social work assessment are identified. The ethical issues necessitate assessment of the person's unique circumstances and preferences and that of their caregivers, and careful ethical deliberation in decision-making. Social work can play an important role in facilitating inclusive assessment and decision-making, leading to consensus on intervening with electronic monitoring. The need for ongoing review following implementation is discussed to track whether decisions need modification in the light of experience of usage. In conclusion, while legislative instruments and professional codes of ethics frame social work practice responses, there is need for a nuanced debate about ethical use of electronic monitoring and specific guidance to inform assessment, decision-making and review.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 113 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 19%
Researcher 13 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Other 5 4%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 36 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 19 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 14%
Psychology 9 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 8%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 43 38%
Attention Score in Context

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 11 April 2018.
All research outputs
#18,601,965
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Gerontological Social Work
#388
of 460 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#262,247
of 336,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Gerontological Social Work
#12
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 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 460 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 336,887 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.