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 |
Fostering Discussion When Teaching Abortion and Other Morally and Spiritually Charged Topics
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The AMA Journal of Ethic, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1001/amajethics.2018.637 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Louise P King, Alan Penzias |
| Abstract |
Best practices for teaching morally and spiritually charged topics, such as abortion, to those early in their medical training are elusive at best, especially in our current political climate. Here we advocate that our duty as educators requires that we explore these topics in a supportive environment. In particular, we must model respectful discourse for our learners in these difficult areas. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 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 | 12 | 36% |
| Canada | 3 | 9% |
| Mexico | 1 | 3% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 14 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 20 | 61% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 24% |
| Scientists | 4 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 13% |
| Librarian | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 21% |
| Unknown | 9 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 25% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 8% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 10 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 25 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,853,510
of 25,992,468 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,156
of 344,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,992,468 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 344,048 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them