↓ Skip to main content

How Should Clinicians Weigh the Benefits and Harms of Discussing Politicized Topics that Influence Their Individual Patients’ Health?

Overview of attention for article published in The AMA Journal of Ethic, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
22 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
How Should Clinicians Weigh the Benefits and Harms of Discussing Politicized Topics that Influence Their Individual Patients’ Health?
Published in
The AMA Journal of Ethic, December 2017
DOI 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.12.ecas3-1712
Pubmed ID
Authors

Diana Alame, Robert D Truog

Abstract

Health implications of politically charged phenomena are particularly difficult for physicians to discuss with their patients and communities. Addressing climate change and its associated health effects involves trade-offs between health and economic prosperity, necessitating that physicians weigh the potential benefits and risks of discussing climate change health effects. We argue that the potential benefits of physician communication and advocacy ultimately outweigh the potential risks. Therefore, physicians should be supported in their efforts to educate their patients and communities about climate change health effects. Furthermore, democratic deliberation could prove helpful in addressing disagreements among physicians within a practice about such politicized health topics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 16%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Professor 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 7 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 16%
Engineering 2 11%
Social Sciences 2 11%
Environmental Science 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 7 37%