↓ Skip to main content

Human Trafficking, Mental Illness, and Addiction: Avoiding Diagnostic Overshadowing

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
103 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
Human Trafficking, Mental Illness, and Addiction: Avoiding Diagnostic Overshadowing
Published in
The AMA Journal of Ethic, January 2017
DOI 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.1.ecas3-1701
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hanni Stoklosa, Marti MacGibbon, Joseph Stoklosa

Abstract

This article reviews an emergency department-based clinical vignette of a trafficked patient with co-occurring pregnancy-related, mental health, and substance use disorder issues. The authors, including a survivor of human trafficking, draw on their backgrounds in addiction care, human trafficking, emergency medicine, and psychiatry to review the literature on relevant general health and mental health consequences of trafficking and propose an approach to the clinical complexities this case presents. In their discussion, the authors explicate the deleterious role of implicit bias and diagnostic overshadowing in trafficked patients with co-occurring addiction and mental illness. Finally, the authors propose a trauma-informed, multidisciplinary response to potentially trafficked patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 103 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 16%
Student > Bachelor 10 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Researcher 5 7%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 12 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 33%
Social Sciences 9 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 10%
Psychology 7 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 14 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 75. 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 08 May 2023.
All research outputs
#591,711
of 26,171,302 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#143
of 2,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,105
of 426,494 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#4
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,171,302 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,799 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 426,494 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.