↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
podcasts
1 podcast

Readers on

mendeley
75 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 important is social support in determining patients’ suitability for transplantation? Results from a National Survey of Transplant Clinicians
Published in
Journal of Medical Ethics, June 2018
DOI 10.1136/medethics-2017-104695
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

National guidelines require programmes use subjective assessments of social support when determining transplant suitability, despite limited evidence linking it to outcomes. We examined how transplant providers weigh the importance of social support for kidney transplantation compared with other factors, and variation by clinical role and personal beliefs. The National survey of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons and the Society of Transplant Social Work in 2016. Using a discrete choice approach, respondents compared two hypothetical patient profiles and selected one for transplantation. Conditional logistic regression estimated the relative importance of each factor; results were stratified by clinical role (psychosocial vs medical/surgical providers) and beliefs (outcomes vs equity). Five hundred and eighy-four transplant providers completed the survey. Social support was the second most influential factor among transplant providers. Providers were most likely to choose a candidate who had social support (OR=1.68, 95% CI 1.50 to 1.86), always adhered to a medical regimen (OR=1.64, 95% CI 1.46 to 1.88), and had a 15 years life expectancy with transplant (OR=1.61, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.85). Psychosocial providers were more influenced by adherence and quality of life compared with medical/surgical providers, who were more influenced by candidates' life expectancy with transplant (p<0.05). For providers concerned with avoiding organ waste, social support was the most influential factor, while it was the least influential for clinicians concerned with fairness (p<0.05). Social support is highly influential in listing decisions and may exacerbate transplant disparities. Providers' beliefs and reliance on social support in determining suitability vary considerably, raising concerns about transparency and justice.

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 profiles of 10 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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 28 37%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 13%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Engineering 3 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 30 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 49. 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 03 September 2022.
All research outputs
#1,006,283
of 29,498,312 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Ethics
#225
of 3,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,662
of 350,716 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Ethics
#3
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,498,312 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 350,716 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.