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 |
The Importance of Patient–Provider Communication in End-of-Life Care
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, October 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11673-012-9397-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Timothy R. Rice, Yuriy Dobry, Vladan Novakovic, Jacob M. Appel |
| Abstract |
Successful formulation and implementation of end-of-life care requires ongoing communication with the patient. When patients, for reasons of general medical or psychiatric illness, fail to verbally communicate, providers must be receptive to messages conveyed through alternate avenues of communication. We present the narrative of a man with schizophrenia who wished to forgo hemodialysis as a study in the ethical importance of attention to nonverbal communication. A multilayered understanding of the patient, as may be provided by both behavioral and motivational models, can inform the provider's ability to receive, process, and represent communicated content to the patient or his or her surrogate decision-maker. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 7 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 19% |
| Psychology | 7 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 7% |
| Philosophy | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 March 2014.
All research outputs
#18,366,246
of 22,747,498 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#520
of 598 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#140,162
of 183,491 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#4
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,747,498 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 598 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 183,491 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.