↓ Skip to main content

Opinions about euthanasia and advanced dementia: a qualitative study among Dutch physicians and members of the general public

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Opinions about euthanasia and advanced dementia: a qualitative study among Dutch physicians and members of the general public
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/1472-6939-16-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pauline SC Kouwenhoven, Natasja JH Raijmakers, Johannes JM van Delden, Judith AC Rietjens, Donald G van Tol, Suzanne van de Vathorst, Nienke de Graeff, Heleen AM Weyers, Agnes van der Heide, Ghislaine JMW van Thiel

Abstract

The Dutch law states that a physician may perform euthanasia according to a written advance euthanasia directive (AED) when a patient is incompetent as long as all legal criteria of due care are met. This may also hold for patients with advanced dementia. We investigated the differing opinions of physicians and members of the general public on the acceptability of euthanasia in patients with advanced dementia.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Singapore 1 1%
Unknown 86 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 21%
Student > Bachelor 17 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Researcher 8 9%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 12 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 14%
Psychology 9 10%
Social Sciences 8 9%
Philosophy 4 5%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 12 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 18 February 2015.
All research outputs
#7,459,464
of 12,373,815 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#407
of 526 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,876
of 265,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,815 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 526 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 265,757 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.