| Title |
Dying individuals and suffering populations: applying a population-level bioethics lens to palliative care in humanitarian contexts: before, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Medical Ethics, June 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1136/medethics-2019-105943 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Keona Jeane Wynne, Mila Petrova, Rachel Coghlan |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 53 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 | 13 | 25% |
| United States | 6 | 11% |
| Australia | 4 | 8% |
| Spain | 3 | 6% |
| Canada | 2 | 4% |
| Portugal | 2 | 4% |
| South Africa | 1 | 2% |
| Argentina | 1 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 14 | 26% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 32 | 60% |
| Scientists | 11 | 21% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 263 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 263 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 32 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 26 | 10% |
| Researcher | 24 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 6% |
| Other | 47 | 18% |
| Unknown | 103 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 58 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 27 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 5% |
| Psychology | 8 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 7 | 3% |
| Other | 39 | 15% |
| Unknown | 110 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 26 September 2023.
All research outputs
#1,283,356
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Ethics
#373
of 3,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,116
of 435,018 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Ethics
#16
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 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 3,699 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 435,018 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.