↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
reddit
14 Redditors

Readers on

mendeley
128 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
Ethnic bias amongst medical students in Aotearoa/New Zealand: Findings from the Bias and Decision Making in Medicine (BDMM) study
Published in
PLOS ONE, August 2018
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0201168
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Although health provider racial/ethnic bias has the potential to influence health outcomes and inequities, research within health education and training contexts remains limited. This paper reports findings from an anonymous web-based study examining racial/ethnic bias amongst final year medical students in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Data from 302 students (34% of all eligible final year medical students) were collected in two waves in 2014 and 2015 as part of the Bias and Decision Making in Medicine (BDMM) study. Two chronic disease vignettes, two implicit bias measures, and measures of explicit bias were used to assess racial/ethnic bias towards New Zealand European and Māori (indigenous) peoples. Medical students demonstrated implicit pro-New Zealand European racial/ethnic bias on average, and bias towards viewing New Zealand European patients as more compliant relative to Māori. Explicit pro-New Zealand European racial/ethnic bias was less evident, but apparent for measures of ethnic preference, relative warmth, and beliefs about the compliance and competence of Māori patients relative to New Zealand European patients. In addition, racial/ethnic bias appeared to be associated with some measures of medical student beliefs about individual patients by ethnicity when responding to a mental health vignette. Patterning of racial/ethnic bias by student characteristics was not consistent, with the exception of some associations between student ethnicity, socioeconomic background, and racial/ethnic bias. This is the first study of its kind with a health professional population in Aotearoa/New Zealand, representing an important contribution to further understanding and addressing current health inequities between Māori and New Zealand European populations.

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 9 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 128 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 128 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 10%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Student > Master 11 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 5%
Researcher 6 5%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 60 47%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 13%
Psychology 12 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 8%
Social Sciences 10 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 61 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 June 2026.
All research outputs
#4,731,560
of 32,913,843 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#49,106
of 218,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,211
of 363,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#845
of 3,356 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,913,843 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 218,641 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 363,264 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,356 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.