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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Depression and decision-making capacity for treatment or research: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-14-54 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas Hindmarch, Matthew Hotopf, Gareth S Owen |
| Abstract |
Psychiatric disorders can pose problems in the assessment of decision-making capacity (DMC). This is so particularly where psychopathology is seen as the extreme end of a dimension that includes normality. Depression is an example of such a psychiatric disorder. Four abilities (understanding, appreciating, reasoning and ability to express a choice) are commonly assessed when determining DMC in psychiatry and uncertainty exists about the extent to which depression impacts capacity to make treatment or research participation decisions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 3 | 75% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 267 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 2% |
| Iran, Islamic Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 259 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 52 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 47 | 18% |
| Researcher | 21 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 19 | 7% |
| Other | 48 | 18% |
| Unknown | 60 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 65 | 24% |
| Psychology | 48 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 26 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 9 | 3% |
| Other | 41 | 15% |
| Unknown | 68 | 25% |
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 12 March 2019.
All research outputs
#16,050,732
of 25,381,384 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#848
of 1,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,653
of 319,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#15
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,381,384 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 1,098 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 319,798 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.