↓ Skip to main content

Risk communication and informed consent in the medical tourism industry: A thematic content analysis of canadian broker websites

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, September 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 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
Risk communication and informed consent in the medical tourism industry: A thematic content analysis of canadian broker websites
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, September 2011
DOI 10.1186/1472-6939-12-17
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kali Penney, Jeremy Snyder, Valorie A Crooks, Rory Johnston

Abstract

Medical tourism, thought of as patients seeking non-emergency medical care outside of their home countries, is a growing industry worldwide. Canadians are amongst those engaging in medical tourism, and many are helped in the process of accessing care abroad by medical tourism brokers - agents who specialize in making international medical care arrangements for patients. As a key source of information for these patients, brokers are likely to play an important role in communicating the risks and benefits of undergoing surgery or other procedures abroad to their clientele. This raises important ethical concerns regarding processes such as informed consent and the liability of brokers in the event that complications arise from procedures. The purpose of this article is to examine the language, information, and online marketing of Canadian medical tourism brokers' websites in light of such ethical concerns.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 119 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 23%
Researcher 22 17%
Student > Master 22 17%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 24 19%
Unknown 8 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 35 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 17%
Business, Management and Accounting 18 14%
Arts and Humanities 6 5%
Linguistics 4 3%
Other 27 21%
Unknown 15 12%

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 15 November 2011.
All research outputs
#2,496,911
of 5,039,474 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#212
of 306 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,508
of 74,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#7
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,039,474 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 306 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 74,415 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.