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 Resident Physicians Respond to Patients’ Discomfort and Students’ Moral Distress When Learning Procedures in Academic Medical Settings?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The AMA Journal of Ethic, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.6.ecas1-1706 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bonnie M Miller |
| Abstract |
In this scenario, a medical student, Lauren, experiences moral distress because she feels that learning to perform a procedure on a patient who requested not to be used for "practice" puts her own interests above the patient's. Lauren might also worry that the resident physician is misrepresenting her abilities. The resident physician could help alleviate Lauren's distress and align her interests with the patient's by more clearly explaining the training situation to the patient and seeking the patient's approval. Lauren might also manage the situation by assuring the patient of the resident's supervisory role. This article argues that trainees should have the opportunities to practice procedures and difficult conversations in simulated settings and that institutions should support a culture of "speaking up" to ensure patients' and learners' safety. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 46 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 | 17 | 37% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 4% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Mexico | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 22 | 48% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 28 | 61% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 11 | 24% |
| Scientists | 7 | 15% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 53 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 23% |
| Researcher | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 19% |
| Unknown | 14 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 11% |
| Psychology | 4 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 19 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 28 February 2020.
All research outputs
#1,490,515
of 26,178,577 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#453
of 2,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,158
of 335,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#18
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,178,577 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 2,799 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 335,256 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 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 55% of its contemporaries.