↓ Skip to main content

How clinicians make (or avoid) moral judgments of patients: implications of the evidence for relationships and research

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, January 2010
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 (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
203 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
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, January 2010
DOI 10.1186/1747-5341-5-11
Pubmed ID
Authors

Terry E Hill

Abstract

Physicians, nurses, and other clinicians readily acknowledge being troubled by encounters with patients who trigger moral judgments. For decades social scientists have noted that moral judgment of patients is pervasive, occurring not only in egregious and criminal cases but also in everyday situations in which appraisals of patients' social worth and culpability are routine. There is scant literature, however, on the actual prevalence and dynamics of moral judgment in healthcare. The indirect evidence available suggests that moral appraisals function via a complex calculus that reflects variation in patient characteristics, clinician characteristics, task, and organizational factors. The full impact of moral judgment on healthcare relationships, patient outcomes, and clinicians' own well-being is yet unknown. The paucity of attention to moral judgment, despite its significance for patient-centered care, communication, empathy, professionalism, healthcare education, stereotyping, and outcome disparities, represents a blind spot that merits explanation and repair. New methodologies in social psychology and neuroscience have yielded models for how moral judgment operates in healthcare and how research in this area should proceed. Clinicians, educators, and researchers would do well to recognize both the legitimate and illegitimate moral appraisals that are apt to occur in healthcare settings.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 203 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 196 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 15%
Student > Bachelor 23 11%
Researcher 22 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 11%
Other 48 24%
Unknown 24 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 23%
Psychology 41 20%
Social Sciences 31 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 14%
Arts and Humanities 6 3%
Other 22 11%
Unknown 28 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 17 April 2021.
All research outputs
#3,705,819
of 20,832,759 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#108
of 212 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,767
of 120,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,832,759 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 212 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 120,020 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.