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 |
The ‘placement’ of people with profound impairments across the lifespan: re-thinking age criteria
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1741-7015-12-83 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Barbara E Gibson, Gillian King, Shauna Kingsnorth, Patricia McKeever |
| Abstract |
Advances in lifesaving technologies and treatments make it possible for children with profound physical and cognitive impairments to survive into adulthood. Questions regarding how and where they should live are discussed rarely and, when they are, primarily focus on safety and/or containing costs. Since models of long-term care provision are age-based, children who reside in institutions are 'discharged' to adult facilities when they reach an arbitrary age. Such transfers may not be in the best interests of these young people or their families. Our aim in this debate is to highlight why age is a problematic criterion for placement decisions, with the goal of stimulating further research and inquiry. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 78 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 15% |
| Researcher | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 18% |
| Unknown | 15 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 14% |
| Psychology | 8 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 18 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 June 2015.
All research outputs
#18,372,841
of 22,756,196 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#3,188
of 3,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,045
of 226,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#51
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,756,196 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,413 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.5. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 226,345 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.