The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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.
Timeline
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
Title |
Framing Confusion: Dementia, Society, and History
|
---|---|
Published in |
The AMA Journal of Ethic, July 2017
|
DOI | 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.7.mhst1-1707 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Jesse F Ballenger |
Abstract |
This essay will briefly sketch historical changes in the framing of dementia since the late nineteenth century. In broad terms, this period has seen a shift from viewing dementia as a pathological variant of normal aging to viewing it as a distinct disease. Although this broad reframing of dementia was clearly positive in raising awareness and funding for research, it had some negative aspects that should be considered. Caregiving came to seem less important than research aimed at a cure, and the stigma surrounding dementia has, if anything, increased. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 6 | 43% |
Japan | 1 | 7% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 7% |
Mexico | 1 | 7% |
Switzerland | 1 | 7% |
Unknown | 4 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 10 | 71% |
Scientists | 2 | 14% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 7% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 32 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 28% |
Student > Master | 6 | 19% |
Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 9% |
Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
Lecturer | 2 | 6% |
Other | 2 | 6% |
Unknown | 7 | 22% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 19% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 13% |
Neuroscience | 3 | 9% |
Social Sciences | 3 | 9% |
Psychology | 2 | 6% |
Other | 3 | 9% |
Unknown | 11 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 24 January 2024.
All research outputs
#2,344,173
of 26,742,580 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#693
of 2,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,484
of 333,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#24
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,742,580 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 2,833 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 333,555 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.