↓ Skip to main content

How Medicine May Save the Life of US Immigration Policy: From Clinical and Educational Encounters to Ethical Public Policy

Overview of attention for article published in The AMA Journal of Ethic, March 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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
95 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
How Medicine May Save the Life of US Immigration Policy: From Clinical and Educational Encounters to Ethical Public Policy
Published in
The AMA Journal of Ethic, March 2017
DOI 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.3.peer1-1703
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark G Kuczewski

Abstract

Medicine has a conceptual contribution to make to the immigration debate. Our nation has been unable to move forward with meaningful immigration reform because many citizens seem to assume that immigrants are in the United States to access benefits to which they are not entitled. In contrast, when medicine encounters undocumented immigrants in the health care or medical education setting, it is obvious that their contributions to our health care system are denied by exclusionary laws. When the system is amended to be inclusive, immigrants become contributors to the systems that they access. I illustrate this thesis concerning the benefits of inclusion through an examination of the issues of forced medical repatriation, access to health insurance, and the access of undocumented students to medical education.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 95 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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Librarian 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 7 21%
Unknown 5 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 41%
Social Sciences 5 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 12%
Psychology 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 4 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 71. 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 07 January 2021.
All research outputs
#626,363
of 26,124,608 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#153
of 2,797 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,748
of 327,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#8
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,124,608 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 2,797 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. 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 327,962 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.