↓ Skip to main content

Health Information Technology as a Universal Donor to Bioethics Education

Overview of attention for article published in Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
85 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.
Article details
Title
Health Information Technology as a Universal Donor to Bioethics Education
Published in
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, March 2017
DOI 10.1017/s0963180116000943
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Health information technology, sometimes called biomedical informatics, is the use of computers and networks in the health professions. This technology has become widespread, from electronic health records to decision support tools to patient access through personal health records. These computational and information-based tools have engendered their own ethics literature and now present an opportunity to shape the standard medical and nursing ethics curricula. It is suggested that each of four core components in the professional education of clinicians-privacy, end-of-life care, access to healthcare and valid consent, and clinician-patient communication-offers an opportunity to leverage health information technology for curricular improvement. Using informatics in ethics education freshens ethics pedagogy and increases its utility, and does so without additional demands on overburdened curricula.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 84 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Student > Master 9 11%
Other 5 6%
Lecturer 4 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 41 48%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 14%
Computer Science 5 6%
Engineering 3 4%
Sports and Recreations 2 2%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 43 51%
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 10 November 2017.
All research outputs
#15,452,475
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics
#341
of 502 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,325
of 309,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics
#9
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 502 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 309,402 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.