The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 |
How Should Physicians Respond When the Best Treatment for an Individual Patient Conflicts with Practice Guidelines about the Use of a Limited Resource?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The AMA Journal of Ethic, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.6.ecas3-1706 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Edmund G Howe |
| Abstract |
The case presents a physician's ethical conflict, due to limited resources, between his obligations to meet the needs of a community and those of his patient. Elements of the decision-making process (and who should make the decision) are discussed, including the limitations of what ethical reasoning can offer and risks of arbitrary outcomes. Additionally, potential benefits to physicians and their patients of discussing these conflicts, including reducing the physician's moral distress, are noted. I argue that physicians' abilities to make "right" decisions in such situations are limited, and I suggest ways in which physicians can try to preserve their relationships with patients. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 5 | 19% |
| United States | 5 | 19% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
| Japan | 1 | 4% |
| Philippines | 1 | 4% |
| Kenya | 1 | 4% |
| Italy | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 11 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 62% |
| Scientists | 5 | 19% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 11 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 27% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 18% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 9% |
| Professor | 1 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 55% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 3 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 April 2023.
All research outputs
#2,135,367
of 26,316,305 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#642
of 2,811 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,616
of 335,708 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#22
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,316,305 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,811 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 335,708 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.