↓ Skip to main content

Clinical Momentum as One Reason Dying Patients Are Underserved in Acute Care Settings.

Overview of attention for article published in AMA Journal of Ethics, August 2018
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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
43 X users

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Clinical Momentum as One Reason Dying Patients Are Underserved in Acute Care Settings.
Published in
AMA Journal of Ethics, August 2018
DOI 10.1001/amajethics.2018.732
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

"Clinical momentum" refers to the curious expansion of interventions applied to patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) without pause or design, leading to extensions of care that can violate patient wishes and distress clinicians. In this article, clinical momentum is placed in a wider context that includes ritual, reimbursement patterns, and actor network theory. These contextual features help motivate understanding of one way in which dying patients are underserved in intensive care settings. Suggestions are made for clinician interaction with families under these circumstances.

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 43 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 23 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 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 8 35%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 6 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 26%
Computer Science 1 4%
Engineering 1 4%
Unknown 9 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. 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 06 June 2023.
All research outputs
#1,392,967
of 34,411,289 outputs
Outputs from AMA Journal of Ethics
#243
of 1,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,033
of 372,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AMA Journal of Ethics
#11
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,411,289 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,867 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 372,443 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 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.