↓ Skip to main content

Qualitative research into the scientific production in the field of bioethics

Overview of attention for article published in Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, July 2014
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
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
Qualitative research into the scientific production in the field of bioethics
Published in
Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, July 2014
DOI 10.1590/1413-81232014197.09422013
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlos Dimas Martins Ribeiro, Ivia Maksud, Lenita Barreto Lorena Claro, Julio Wong Un

Abstract

This article discusses the character and use of qualitative research methods in the field of bioethics. A systematic review of articles published in Latin American countries and selected from the SciELO database was conducted, with special emphasis on articles that employed qualitative research methodology. The set of articles reveals a field of bioethics composed of three distinct vectors. The first refers to the dual characterization of bioethics that can be defined as a social movement or as a discipline; the second differentiates bioethics from other fields of ethics, especially from predominantly deontology-based professional ethics; and the third is related to ethical approaches adopted in the analyses conducted in the research. A relatively insignificant part of these texts result from qualitative research and they can be divided into four categories according to their themes and guidelines: bioethics as a field and/or discourse; training in health; ethics, care, and clinical practice; formulation of health policy. The production shows, on the one hand, a relatively timid approach of social science researchers to the field of bioethics and, on the other hand, little use of qualitative methodologies in research in the field and, in some cases, a certain lack of precision regarding use of the methods.

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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 12%
Unknown 15 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 18%
Professor 3 18%
Student > Master 3 18%
Researcher 2 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 3 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 6 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 12%
Environmental Science 1 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 6%
Psychology 1 6%
Other 3 18%
Unknown 3 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 02 February 2016.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#1,121
of 2,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,840
of 242,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#10
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,037 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 242,347 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.