The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 55 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 |
When and How Should Clinicians Share Details from a Health Record with Patients with Mental Illness?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The AMA Journal of Ethic, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.3.ecas3-1703 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Robyn P Thom, Helen M Farrell |
| Abstract |
Stigma associated with mental illness-a public health crisis-is perpetuated by the language used to describe and document it. Psychiatric pathology and how it can be perceived among clinicians contribute to the marginalization of patients, which exacerbates their vulnerability. Clinical documentation of mental illness has long been mired in pejorative language that perpetuates negative assumptions about those with mental illness. Although patients have the legal right to view their health record, sharing mental health notes with patients remains a sensitive issue, largely due to clinicians' fears that review of this content might cause harm, specifically psychiatric destabilization. However, the ethical principles of justice, beneficence, and autonomy as well as nonmaleficence must be considered by clinicians in determining when and how to share psychiatric details from a health record with their patients. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 9 | 16% |
| Canada | 4 | 7% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 4% |
| Denmark | 2 | 4% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Finland | 1 | 2% |
| Mexico | 1 | 2% |
| South Africa | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 32 | 58% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 35 | 64% |
| Scientists | 10 | 18% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 16% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 19% |
| Researcher | 4 | 19% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 5 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 19% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 19 November 2021.
All research outputs
#1,215,445
of 25,992,468 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,824
of 327,405 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. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.6. 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 327,405 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 92% 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