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 |
Culturally Competent Bioethics: Analysis of a Case Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11673-015-9636-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ben Gray |
| Abstract |
This paper discusses the Saudi Arabian case by Abdallah Adlan and Henk ten Have, published in a 2012 issue of the Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, regarding a congenitally disabled child enrolled in a research project examining the genetics of her condition. During the course of the study, her father was found not to be genetically related, and the case discussed the dilemma between disclosing to the family all findings as promised in consent documents or withholding paternity information because of the likely severe social repercussions. Using Adlan and ten Have's example, this paper proposes a framework to consider cases outside of the conventional bioethics frame of reference, splitting the bioethical task into three elements: understanding the problem from the patient's and the clinician's perspective and then engaging in dialogue to decide what to do next. The process of dialogue between affected parties is vital. Presuming that there is a common morality undermines the effectiveness of the dialogue needed to find a resolution. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 18% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 9% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 6 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 14% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 7 | 32% |
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 29 May 2015.
All research outputs
#15,333,633
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#438
of 599 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,588
of 266,679 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 599 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 266,679 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.