↓ Skip to main content

Assisted reproductive technologies and equity of access issues

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Ethics, April 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
153 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Assisted reproductive technologies and equity of access issues
Published in
Journal of Medical Ethics, April 2005
DOI 10.1136/jme.2003.007542
Pubmed ID
Authors

M M Peterson

Abstract

In Australia and other countries, certain groups of women have traditionally been denied access to assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs). These typically are single heterosexual women, lesbians, poor women, and those whose ability to rear children is questioned, particularly women with certain disabilities or who are older. The arguments used to justify selection of women for ARTs are most often based on issues such as scarcity of resources, and absence of infertility (in lesbians and single women), or on social concerns: that it "goes against nature"; particular women might not make good mothers; unconventional families are not socially acceptable; or that children of older mothers might be orphaned at an early age. The social, medical, legal, and ethical reasoning that has traditionally promoted this lack of equity in access to ARTs, and whether the criteria used for client deselection are ethically appropriate in any particular case, are explored by this review. In addition, the issues of distribution and just "gatekeeping" practices associated with these sensitive medical services are examined.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 153 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 148 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 28 18%
Student > Master 24 16%
Researcher 15 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 8%
Other 26 17%
Unknown 33 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 19%
Social Sciences 23 15%
Psychology 12 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 5%
Other 34 22%
Unknown 38 25%
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 24 August 2012.
All research outputs
#16,722,913
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Ethics
#2,996
of 3,682 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,175
of 69,673 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Ethics
#13
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,682 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.1. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 69,673 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.