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 |
How clinicians make (or avoid) moral judgments of patients: implications of the evidence for relationships and research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, July 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1747-5341-5-11 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Terry E Hill |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 States | 2 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 20% |
| Germany | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 80% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 214 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 1% |
| Turkey | 2 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 207 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 34 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 32 | 15% |
| Researcher | 24 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 20 | 9% |
| Other | 47 | 22% |
| Unknown | 34 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 45 | 21% |
| Psychology | 41 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 31 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 29 | 14% |
| Arts and Humanities | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 25 | 12% |
| Unknown | 37 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 12 April 2024.
All research outputs
#3,402,889
of 25,701,027 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#91
of 235 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,040
of 105,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,701,027 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 235 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 105,475 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 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.