The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 |
How Biased and Carceral Responses to Persons With Mental Illness in Acute Medical Care Settings Constitute Iatrogenic Harms.
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The AMA Journal of Ethic, August 2022
|
| DOI | 10.1001/amajethics.2022.781 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carmen Black, Amanda Calhoun |
| Abstract |
Recognizing their roles in iatrogenesis requires clinicians and professions to take responsibility for attitudes and policies that harm patients and waste resources. A striking, neglected set of examples of iatrogenic harm involves persons with severe mental illness (SMI) who seek inpatient medical care. This article describes how medicine, despite spending billions each year trying to respond to acute physical medical needs of persons with SMI, participates in carceral policies and practices that fail to prioritize continuity of care. This article also details clinicians' and professions' responsibilities to mitigate their roles in iatrogenic harm incursion by practicing antiracist, evidence-based, collaborative care to motivate equity, reduce waste, and improve outcomes, especially in crisis responses to patients experiencing acute exacerbations of SMI in inpatient medical care settings. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 38% |
| Unknown | 5 | 63% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 88% |
| Scientists | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1 Mendeley reader of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 1 | 100% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 1 | 100% |
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 24 April 2024.
All research outputs
#8,009,834
of 25,992,468 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,136
of 436,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,992,468 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 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 436,190 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them