↓ Skip to main content

Ethical Issues in Dysphagia: When Patients Refuse Assessment or Treatment

Overview of attention for article published in Seminars in Speech & Language, January 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Readers on

mendeley
63 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
Ethical Issues in Dysphagia: When Patients Refuse Assessment or Treatment
Published in
Seminars in Speech & Language, January 2003
DOI 10.1055/s-2004-815578
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helen Sharp, Karen Bryant

Abstract

The primary goal of intervention for patients with dysphagia is to restore oral feeding. When patients are unable to achieve adequate nutrition, hydration, or safety with oral feeding, then nonoral approaches are often recommended. Although patients' rights to accept or refuse clinical recommendations are widely recognized, when a patient refuses tube feeding or other recommendations, dysphagia specialists are left with a host of practical questions about their role in caring for the patient. We review the criteria for assessing patients' capacity to make informed choices, approaches to decision making when patients lack capacity, and the roles and responsibilities of clinicians when patients choose high-risk treatment options.

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 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 %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 30%
Student > Bachelor 9 14%
Researcher 5 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 9 14%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 19 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 27%
Linguistics 6 10%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 12 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 January 2007.
All research outputs
#12,372,536
of 34,451,315 outputs
Outputs from Seminars in Speech & Language
#92
of 338 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,486
of 191,470 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Seminars in Speech & Language
#1
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,451,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 338 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
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 191,470 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them