↓ Skip to main content

Physicians Asking Patients About Guns: Promoting Patient Safety, Respecting Patient Rights

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
17 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
Physicians Asking Patients About Guns: Promoting Patient Safety, Respecting Patient Rights
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, May 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11606-016-3694-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brendan Parent

Abstract

Recent debate on whether physicians should discuss gun ownership with their patients has centered on determining whether gun injuries are an issue of health or safety, and on protecting patient privacy. Yet, physicians' duties span personal health, public health, and safety spheres, and they often must address private patient matters. To prioritize gun safety and reduce gun injuries, the primary policy-driving question should be: will physician counseling on gun ownership effectively reduce gun-related injuries without interfering with the physician's other treatment obligations or compromising the physician-patient relationship? Existing data on physician-initiated conversations with patients about guns support a positive prevention effect. However, it is critical that physician-initiated discussions of safe gun practices are not motivated by, nor convey, disapproval of gun ownership. To be ethical, respectful, and efficient, the conversation should be standard between primary care providers and all of their patients (not limited to patient subsets); questions and education should be limited to topics of gun-ownership risks and storage practices; and the conversation must be framed without bias against gun ownership.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Other 5 12%
Student > Master 3 7%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 12 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 14%
Psychology 3 7%
Arts and Humanities 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 13 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 03 October 2023.
All research outputs
#1,214,207
of 25,611,630 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#975
of 8,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,829
of 349,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#14
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,611,630 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,228 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. 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 349,290 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.