↓ Skip to main content

Remote Monitoring or Close Encounters? Ethical Considerations in Priority Setting Regarding Telecare

Overview of attention for article published in Health Care Analysis, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
Remote Monitoring or Close Encounters? Ethical Considerations in Priority Setting Regarding Telecare
Published in
Health Care Analysis, July 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10728-012-0218-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anders Nordgren

Abstract

The proportion of elderly in society is growing rapidly, leading to increasing health care costs. New remote monitoring technologies are expected to lower these costs by reducing the number of close encounters with health care professionals, for example the number of visits to health care centres. In this paper, I discuss issues of priority setting raised by this expectation. As a starting-point, I analyse the recent debate on principles for priority setting in Sweden. The Swedish debate illustrates that developing an approach to priority setting is an ongoing process. On the basis of this analysis, I conclude that several different ethical principles, and specifications of these principles, can be appealed to for giving priority-over close encounters-to a large-scale introduction of remote monitoring technologies in health care services to elderly people, but also that many specifications can be appealed to against giving such priority. I propose that given the different views on principles, it is necessary to develop fair procedures of deliberation on these principles and their application, in particular in order to reach agreement on exactly how much resources should be allocated to remote monitoring and how much to close encounters. I also present a few points to consider in a large-scale introduction of remote monitoring.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 47 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 16%
Student > Master 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 15 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 7 14%
Psychology 4 8%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Engineering 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 6%
Other 13 27%
Unknown 15 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 19 August 2012.
All research outputs
#15,274,677
of 23,666,309 outputs
Outputs from Health Care Analysis
#220
of 303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,900
of 144,535 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Care Analysis
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,666,309 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 303 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 144,535 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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.