↓ Skip to main content

How Should State Licensing and Credentialing Boards Respond When Government Clinicians Spread False or Misleading Health Information?

Overview of attention for article published in The AMA Journal of Ethic, March 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Readers on

mendeley
1 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 State Licensing and Credentialing Boards Respond When Government Clinicians Spread False or Misleading Health Information?
Published in
The AMA Journal of Ethic, March 2023
DOI 10.1001/amajethics.2023.210
Pubmed ID
Authors

Allison M Whelan

Abstract

The spread of health misinformation by health care professionals who also hold government positions represents a long-standing problem that intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic. This article describes this problem and considers legal and other response strategies. State licensing and credentialing boards must use their authorities to discipline clinicians who spread misinformation and to reinforce the nature and scope of professional and ethical obligations of government and nongovernment clinicians. Individual clinicians must also play an important role by actively and vigorously correcting misinformation disseminated by other clinicians.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1 Mendeley reader of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 1 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 1 100%
Student > Master 1 100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 1 100%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 30 March 2023.
All research outputs
#7,209,485
of 25,992,468 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,848
of 427,413 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. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. 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 427,413 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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