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 |
Netnography and the bioethical analysis of therapeutic tourism blogs for stem cells
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1590/1413-812320152110.16422016 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Natan Monsores, Cecilia Lopes, Edilnete Maria Bessa Bezerra, Natasha Lunara Silva |
| Abstract |
Therapeutic tourism is a recent phenomenon in public health and has had repercussions among people with disabilities. Virtual social networks have enabled people to organize themselves to discover ways and means of seeking unconventional treatments in China. In this context, foreign biotech companies have offered experimental cell treatment therapies. In this work, netnography (conducting ethnographic research online) was conducted on the blogs of 58 people who organized campaigns to carry out treatment in China. In the analysis it was found that the main motivation for mobilization of resources and people in order to submit a disabled child to a treatment with stem cells without scientific proof is the rhetoric of hope promoted by stem cell laboratories. The conclusion drawn is that due to the ethical, legal and health implications, debate on the subject should be broadened in order to protect vulnerable individuals against inadvertent exposure to health risks due to treatments without proven control or rigor. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Mexico | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 32 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 13% |
| Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 19% |
| Unknown | 11 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 7 | 22% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 12 | 38% |
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 07 March 2018.
All research outputs
#16,046,765
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#985
of 2,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,841
of 332,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#13
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 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 2,034 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 332,555 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 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.