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 |
How Important Is ‘Accuracy’ of Surrogate Decision-Making for Research Participation?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0054790 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Scott Y. H. Kim, H. Myra Kim, Kerry A. Ryan, Paul S. Appelbaum, David S. Knopman, Laura Damschroder, Raymond De Vries |
| Abstract |
There is a longstanding concern about the accuracy of surrogate consent in representing the health care and research preferences of those who lose their ability to decide for themselves. We sought informed, deliberative views of the older general public (≥50 years old) regarding their willingness to participate in dementia research and to grant leeway to future surrogates to choose an option contrary to their stated wishes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Italy | 1 | 14% |
| Argentina | 1 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 3 | 43% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 29% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 29% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 70 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 16 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 29% |
| Psychology | 8 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 10% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 19 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 26 February 2013.
All research outputs
#7,678,794
of 24,662,675 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#99,606
of 213,272 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,688
of 292,394 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,830
of 5,023 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,662,675 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 213,272 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 292,394 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,023 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 61% of its contemporaries.