↓ Skip to main content

Systems thinking and ethics in public health: a necessary and mutually beneficial partnership

Overview of attention for article published in Monash Bioethics Review, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#42 of 150)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Systems thinking and ethics in public health: a necessary and mutually beneficial partnership
Published in
Monash Bioethics Review, June 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40592-018-0082-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Diego S. Silva, Maxwell J. Smith, Cameron D. Norman

Abstract

Systems thinking has emerged as a means of conceptualizing and addressing complex public health problems, thereby challenging more commonplace understanding of problems and corresponding solutions as straightforward explanations of cause and effect. Systems thinking tries to address the complexity of problems through qualitative and quantitative modeling based on a variety of systems theories, each with their own assumptions and, more importantly, implicit and unexamined values. To date, however, there has been little engagement between systems scientists and those working in bioethics and public health ethics. The goal of this paper is to begin to consider what it might mean to combine systems thinking with public health ethics to solve public health challenges. We argue that there is a role for ethics in systems thinking in public health as a means of elucidating implicit assumptions and facilitating ethics debate and dialogue with key stakeholders.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 19%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 17 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 24 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 12 June 2020.
All research outputs
#6,313,173
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Monash Bioethics Review
#42
of 150 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,555
of 329,715 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Monash Bioethics Review
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 150 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 329,715 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.