↓ Skip to main content

Participation of Children in Medical Decision-Making: Challenges and Potential Solutions

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
Title
Participation of Children in Medical Decision-Making: Challenges and Potential Solutions
Published in
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, September 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11673-016-9747-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vida Jeremic, Karine Sénécal, Pascal Borry, Davit Chokoshvili, Danya F. Vears

Abstract

Participation in healthcare decision-making is considered to be an important right of minors, and is highlighted in both international legislation and public policies. However, despite the legal recognition of children's rights to participation, and also the benefits that children experience by their involvement, there is evidence that legislation is not always translated into healthcare practice. There are a number of factors that may impact on the ability of the child to be involved in decisions regarding their medical care. Some of these factors relate to the child, including their capacity to be actively involved in these decisions. Others relate to the family situation, sociocultural context, or the underlying beliefs and practices of the healthcare provider involved. In spite of these challenges to including children in decisions regarding their clinical care, we argue that it is an important factor in their treatment. The extent to which children should participate in this process should be determined on a case-by-case basis, taking all of the potential barriers into account.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 77 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 15%
Student > Bachelor 12 15%
Researcher 7 9%
Other 6 8%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 17 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 15%
Psychology 9 12%
Social Sciences 8 10%
Philosophy 2 3%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 22 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 08 August 2017.
All research outputs
#6,171,152
of 22,889,074 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#236
of 600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,176
of 320,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,889,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 600 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 320,659 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 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