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 |
How Should Clinicians Express Solidarity With Asylum Seekers at the US-Mexico Border?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The AMA Journal of Ethic, April 2022
|
| DOI | 10.1001/amajethics.2022.275 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carlos Martinez, Lauren Carruth, Hannah Janeway, Lahra Smith, Katharine M Donato, Carlos Piñones-Rivera, James Quesada, Seth M Holmes |
| Abstract |
Migrants along the US-Mexico border have been subjected to transnational violence created by international policy, militaristic intervention, and multinational organizational administration of border operations. The COVID-19 pandemic compounded migrants' vulnerabilities and provoked several logistical and ethical problems for US-based clinicians and organizations. This commentary examines how the concept of transnational solidarity facilitates analysis of clinicians' and migrants' shared historical and structural vulnerabilities. This commentary also suggests how actions implemented by one organization in Tijuana, Mexico, could be scaled more broadly for care of migrants and asylum seekers in other transnational health care settings. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 | 86% |
| Spain | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 1 | 7% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 7 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 6 | 43% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 13 | 65% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 6 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 13 | 65% |
| Unknown | 7 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 November 2022.
All research outputs
#2,218,129
of 26,077,794 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#668
of 2,796 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,772
of 453,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#14
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,077,794 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,796 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
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 453,142 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.