The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Why Professionalism Demands Abolition of Carceral Approaches to Patients' Nonadherence Behaviors.
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The AMA Journal of Ethic, March 2022
|
| DOI | 10.1001/amajethics.2022.181 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nhi Tran, Aminta Kouyate, Monica U Hahn |
| Abstract |
Some clinicians' and organizations' considerations of how a patient's prior adherence to health recommendations should influence that patient's candidacy for a current intervention express structural racism and carceral bias. When clinical judgment is influenced by racism and carceral logic, patients of color are at risk of having their health services delivered by clinicians in ways that are inappropriately interrogative, aggressive, or punitive. This commentary on a case suggests how an abolitionist approach can help clinicians orient themselves affectively to patients whose health behaviors express or have expressed nonadherence. This article argues that an abolitionist approach is key to facilitating clinicians' understandings of root causes of many patients' nonadherence behaviors and that an abolitionist approach is needed to express basic health professionalism and promote just, antiracist, patient-centered practice. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 7 | 33% |
| Canada | 2 | 10% |
| India | 1 | 5% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 10 | 48% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 52% |
| Scientists | 5 | 24% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 19 December 2022.
All research outputs
#1,667,660
of 26,386,754 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#504
of 2,810 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,826
of 457,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#6
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,386,754 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,810 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 457,439 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.