↓ Skip to main content

How empathic are vegan medical professionals compared to others? Leads from a paper–pencil-survey

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
56 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
How empathic are vegan medical professionals compared to others? Leads from a paper–pencil-survey
Published in
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, November 2017
DOI 10.1038/s41430-017-0007-8
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The aim of this survey was to examine differences in personality profiles among 198 vegan (n = 64; 32.3%), vegetarian (n = 78; 39.4%) and omnivore (n = 55; 27.8%) medical professionals. Outcomes were motives for the nutritional approaches, WHO QoL-BREF, Big Five SOEP Inventory, Portraits Value Questionnaire, and Empathizing Scale. Regarding motives for particular diets, omnivores rated influence of guardians (p < 0.001), physical health (p = 0.017) and food taste (p = 0.001) as more and love of animals as less important (p < 0.001) than vegans and vegetarians. Vegans and vegetarians consumed less coffee (p = 0.007) and alcohol compared to omnivores (p = 0.017). The duration of adhering to a specific diet was significantly shorter in vegans. Data suggest that vegan medical professionals do not differ from vegetarians or omnivores regarding empathy, values or personality traits. Differences to a related internet sample were observed for a number of outcomes. Given the small sample size and potential selection bias through the specific subpopulation attending a plant-based nutrition conference, further studies are warranted to confirm these results. Particularly, potential reciprocities between empathy and individual nutritional choices deserve further attention.

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.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 5%
Lecturer 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 22 39%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 13%
Unspecified 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 22 39%
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 12 May 2018.
All research outputs
#18,607,615
of 23,049,027 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Nutrition
#3,416
of 3,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,463
of 330,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Nutrition
#36
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,049,027 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,876 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.4. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 330,853 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 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.