| Title |
Implantable Smart Technologies (IST): Defining the ‘Sting’ in Data and Device
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Care Analysis, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10728-015-0309-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gill Haddow, Shawn H. E. Harmon, Leah Gilman |
| Abstract |
In a world surrounded by smart objects from sensors to automated medical devices, the ubiquity of 'smart' seems matched only by its lack of clarity. In this article, we use our discussions with expert stakeholders working in areas of implantable medical devices such as cochlear implants, implantable cardiac defibrillators, deep brain stimulators and in vivo biosensors to interrogate the difference facets of smart in 'implantable smart technologies', considering also whether regulation needs to respond to the autonomy that such artefacts carry within them. We discover that when smart technology is deconstructed it is a slippery and multi-layered concept. A device's ability to sense and transmit data and automate medicine can be associated with the 'sting' of autonomy being disassociated from human control as well as affecting individual, group, and social environments. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 | 2 | 33% |
| France | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 56 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 13% |
| Researcher | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unknown | 21 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 7 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 18% |
| Unknown | 22 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 06 September 2022.
All research outputs
#7,082,691
of 24,629,540 outputs
Outputs from Health Care Analysis
#112
of 312 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,671
of 399,351 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Care Analysis
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,629,540 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 312 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 399,351 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.