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 |
When Does Therapeutic Misconception Affect Surrogates’ or Subjects’ Decision Making about Whether to Participate in Dementia Research?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The AMA Journal of Ethic, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.7.nlit1-1707 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laura B Dunn, Barton W Palmer |
| Abstract |
"Therapeutic misconception" (TM) refers to inappropriate assumptions and beliefs on the part of research participants regarding key distinctions between the purpose, methods, intended benefits, and potential disadvantages of research compared to those of clinical care. Despite an extensive literature describing TM across varied types of research and populations, minimal work has addressed TM in the context of dementia research. This is a serious gap, for several reasons: people with dementia are at significant risk of diminished capacity; surrogate decision makers are typically asked to provide consent on behalf of the person with dementia; and available treatments for dementia are quite limited. More research is needed on the prevalence, nature, and impact of TM in the context of clinical dementia research. |
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 | 6 | 43% |
| Spain | 1 | 7% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 6 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 64% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 21% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 7% |
| Scientists | 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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 5% |
| Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 15% |
| Unknown | 9 | 45% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 25% |
| Psychology | 3 | 15% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 9 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 23 April 2023.
All research outputs
#4,839,279
of 25,992,468 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,783
of 331,689 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 81st 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 a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. 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 331,689 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 76% 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