↓ Skip to main content

Supporting ethical use of electronic monitoring for people living with dementia: Social work’s role in assessment, decision-making, and review

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Gerontological Social Work, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 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
Supporting ethical use of electronic monitoring for people living with dementia: Social work’s role in assessment, decision-making, and review
Published in
Journal of Gerontological Social Work, February 2018
DOI 10.1080/01634372.2018.1433738
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eleanor Bantry-White

Abstract

Walking outdoors supports health and well-being but some people living with dementia are at increased risk of getting lost and of harm while missing. Electronic monitoring can potentially play an important preventative role by enabling the person's location to be continuously monitored by caregivers. However, there are considerable ethical concerns arising from electronic monitoring. This paper explores these thematically, drawing attention to its implications for autonomy and liberty; privacy; dignity; the rights and needs of caregivers and families; beneficence and non-maleficence. Following from this, key questions for consideration in social work assessment are identified. The ethical issues necessitate assessment of the person's unique circumstances and preferences and that of their caregivers, and careful ethical deliberation in decision-making. Social work can play an important role in facilitating inclusive assessment and decision-making, leading to consensus on intervening with electronic monitoring. The need for ongoing review following implementation is discussed to track whether decisions need modification in the light of experience of usage. In conclusion, while legislative instruments and professional codes of ethics frame social work practice responses, there is need for a nuanced debate about ethical use of electronic monitoring and specific guidance to inform assessment, decision-making and review.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 96 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 14%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Unspecified 6 6%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 19 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 18 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 17%
Psychology 9 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 8%
Unspecified 6 6%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 24 25%

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 11 April 2018.
All research outputs
#10,219,379
of 12,793,889 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Gerontological Social Work
#191
of 232 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,012
of 274,097 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Gerontological Social Work
#5
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,793,889 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 232 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 274,097 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.