The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 |
Why It’s Unjust to Expect Location-Specific, Language-Specific, or Population-Specific Service from Students with Underrepresented Minority or Low-Income Backgrounds
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The AMA Journal of Ethic, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.3.ecas1-1703 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Barret Michalec, Maria Athina Tina Martimianakis, Jon C Tilburt, Frederic W Hafferty |
| Abstract |
In this case we meet Amanda, a medical student of Native and Latin American ethnicity who receives financial aid. Her friends are surprised by her interest in an elite residency program. They suggest, rather, that with her language skills, ethnic background, and interest in social justice, she has a responsibility to work with underserved patient populations. In our commentary, we consider issues raised by the case and explore Amanda's friends' underlying expectations and assumptions that perpetuate the very inequities that the resolution of the case purports to address. We also identify the role of privilege and address the "burden of expectation" that appears to be associated with underrepresented minority (URM) medical students and normative assumptions about their career paths. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 44% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 11% |
| Canada | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 3 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 78% |
| Scientists | 2 | 22% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 43 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 12% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Unknown | 18 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 21% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 9% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 21 | 49% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 16 June 2022.
All research outputs
#5,357,103
of 25,992,468 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,362
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 well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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