↓ Skip to main content

Groupthink: How Should Clinicians Respond to Human Trafficking?

Overview of attention for article published in The AMA Journal of Ethic, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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.
Title
Groupthink: How Should Clinicians Respond to Human Trafficking?
Published in
The AMA Journal of Ethic, January 2017
DOI 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.1.msoc3-1701
Pubmed ID
Abstract

Human trafficking is a pervasive problem that exceeds the capacity of social and organizational resources to restrain and for which guidelines are inadequate to assist medical professionals in responding to the special needs of victims when they present as patients. One obstacle to appropriate disagreement with an inadequate status quo is the lure of group cohesion. "Groupthink" is a social psychological phenomenon in which presumed group consensus prevails despite potentially adverse consequences. In the context of the medical response to human trafficking, groupthink may foster complacency, rationalize acquiescence with inaction on the basis of perceived futility, create an illusion of unanimity, and accommodate negative stereotyping. Despite these inhibiting influences, even in apparently futile situations, medical professionals have unique opportunities to be a force for good.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 7%
Unknown 13 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 36%
Student > Bachelor 3 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 3 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 14%
Psychology 1 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 4 29%