The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 Military Health Care Workers Respond When Conflict Reaches the Hospital?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The AMA Journal of Ethic, June 2022
|
| DOI | 10.1001/amajethics.2022.478 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hunter Jackson Smith, Joseph Procaccino, Megan Applewhite |
| Abstract |
Military clinicians face unique ethical challenges in conflict zones, particularly if conflict reaches a health care setting. Although the ethical challenges of rationing and triaging while fulfilling obligations to individual patients are not dissimilar to those civilian clinicians encountered during the COVID-19 pandemic, military clinicians must also meet national security and mission requirements. Conflicting clinical care, mission, and individual conscience obligations can cause moral distress, a deeply troubling internal conflict also experienced by civilian clinicians. Crisis settings imposed in conflict or during pandemic surges demonstrate the need for all clinicians to be prepared to modify practice priorities during extreme circumstances. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 9 | 53% |
| Unknown | 8 | 47% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 65% |
| Scientists | 3 | 18% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 18% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 5 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Librarian | 1 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 11 October 2022.
All research outputs
#3,809,655
of 25,992,468 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,443
of 450,663 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 well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. 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 450,663 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 82% 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