The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 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 |
Should Health Professionals Speak Up to Reduce the Health Risks of Climate Change?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The AMA Journal of Ethic, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.12.msoc1-1712 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cheryl C Macpherson, Matthew Wynia |
| Abstract |
Should physicians take action in the political realm to address climate change? There are many historical examples of physician advocacy in the political sphere, both individually and as a collective, and many have argued that it is important for health professionals to advocate on a variety of issues. But which criteria should be used to determine when and how health professionals should take on particular advocacy issues, and is climate change an appropriate-or even obligatory-arena for physician advocacy? We propose a seven-part deliberative framework for making this determination. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 14 | 44% |
| Uganda | 1 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Costa Rica | 1 | 3% |
| Mexico | 1 | 3% |
| Brazil | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Andorra | 1 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 8 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 50% |
| Scientists | 8 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 22% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 11% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 12 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 23% |
| Engineering | 5 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 9% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 12 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 07 July 2022.
All research outputs
#1,539,949
of 25,992,468 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,430
of 449,564 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 94th 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 25.2. 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 449,564 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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