↓ Skip to main content

More harm than good? The questionable ethics of medical volunteering and international student placements

Overview of attention for article published in Tropical Diseases, Travel Medicine and Vaccines, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#10 of 145)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
38 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
111 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
193 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
More harm than good? The questionable ethics of medical volunteering and international student placements
Published in
Tropical Diseases, Travel Medicine and Vaccines, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40794-017-0048-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Irmgard Bauer

Abstract

It has been argued that much of international medical volunteering is done for the wrong reasons, in that local people serve as a means to meet volunteers' needs, or for the right reasons but ignorance and ill-preparedness harm the intended beneficiaries, often without volunteers' grasp of the damage caused. The literature on ethical concerns in medical volunteering has grown tremendously over the last years highlighting the need for appropriate guidelines. These same concerns, however, and an appreciation of the reasons why current aid paradigms are flawed, can serve as indicators on how to change existing practices to ensure a better outcome for those who are in need of help. Such paradigm change envisages medical assistance in the spirit of solidarity, social justice, equality, and collegial collaboration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 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 193 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 193 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 35 18%
Student > Master 33 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 10%
Researcher 12 6%
Student > Postgraduate 12 6%
Other 31 16%
Unknown 51 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 9%
Social Sciences 15 8%
Psychology 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Other 29 15%
Unknown 58 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. 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 26 April 2022.
All research outputs
#1,010,496
of 24,652,007 outputs
Outputs from Tropical Diseases, Travel Medicine and Vaccines
#10
of 145 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,981
of 316,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tropical Diseases, Travel Medicine and Vaccines
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,652,007 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 145 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 316,046 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 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