↓ 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

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
99 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
190 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 190 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 183 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 16%
Researcher 26 14%
Student > Master 26 14%
Student > Bachelor 22 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 35 18%
Unknown 40 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 36 19%
Business, Management and Accounting 31 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 12%
Psychology 6 3%
Arts and Humanities 6 3%
Other 39 21%
Unknown 49 26%
Attention Score in Context

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
#14,139,782
of 22,656,971 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#745
of 985 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,067
of 131,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#6
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,656,971 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 985 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 131,247 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.