↓ Skip to main content

Framing Confusion: Dementia, Society, and History

Overview of attention for article published in The AMA Journal of Ethic, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
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

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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.
Mendeley readers

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

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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
#2,352,633
of 25,992,468 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,666
of 331,689 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 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% 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 15.5. 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 331,689 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 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