↓ Skip to main content

Dysthanasia, euthanasia, orthotanasia: the perceptions of nurses working in intensive care units and care implications

Overview of attention for article published in Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem, November 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

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
Dysthanasia, euthanasia, orthotanasia: the perceptions of nurses working in intensive care units and care implications
Published in
Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem, November 2009
DOI 10.1590/s0104-11692009000500003
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

This study aimed to analyze the perceptions of nurses working in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of a University Hospital in Brazil concerning dysthanasia, orthotanasia and euthanasia and characterize potential implications of their perceptions for care. This quantitative study was carried out with the application of a questionnaire to 27 nurses after approval from the institution's Ethics Committee and authorization from participants were obtained. None of the nurses were able to explain euthanasia, half of them explained dysthanasia, and only a third explained orthotanasia, 65.39% recognized some of these processes in their daily practice, 25.9% believed nurses cannot provide any contribution even being familiar with these concepts and their applicability, 82.36% believed that knowledge of bioethical principles is relevant but only 14.81% were able to mention these principles. The bases of nurses' professional practice were not homogeneous and knowledge about the subject was limited. Orthotanasia, bioethical principles and the delivery of humanized care should be the foundation of nursing care.

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 75 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 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 23 31%
Student > Master 10 13%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 4 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 5%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 23 31%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 22 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 1%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 24 32%
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 23 August 2023.
All research outputs
#9,514,662
of 27,774,969 outputs
Outputs from Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem
#180
of 878 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,530
of 189,501 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,774,969 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 878 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 189,501 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.