↓ Skip to main content

Use of the Hippocratic or other professional oaths in UK medical schools in 2017: practice, perception of benefit and principlism

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, December 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 (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
23 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
Use of the Hippocratic or other professional oaths in UK medical schools in 2017: practice, perception of benefit and principlism
Published in
BMC Research Notes, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13104-017-3114-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ben Green

Abstract

This paper concerns the continued use of the Hippocratic Oath in United Kingdom (UK) medical schools. A survey of all UK medical schools looked at which schools use the Oath, which variants they use, and what they perceive to be the benefits of using the Oath. 27 schools participated in the study. Although some authors have deemed the Oath as out of date for the purposes of modern medicine [1], new variants of the Oath have been embraced and 19/27 (70%) of schools use an Oath, with some Universities asking student doctors to acknowledge this Oath on entry to and graduation from medical school. There is a renewed interest in use of the Oath, with use in some Schools on admission and graduation. Reasons for adopting the Oath include a desire to enhance good practice and to prevent unwanted behaviour. Variants of the Oath used were analysed according to which bioethical principles are contained within them and some do not accord with all principles. A new variant of the Oath is proposed which encompasses all four bioethical principles.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 27%
Student > Bachelor 3 20%
Other 1 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Other 3 20%
Unknown 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 33%
Psychology 3 20%
Social Sciences 1 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Engineering 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 27%

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 04 December 2019.
All research outputs
#1,070,148
of 13,989,386 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#146
of 3,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,022
of 398,274 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#11
of 413 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,989,386 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,195 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 398,274 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 413 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.