↓ 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

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 31 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 22%
Student > Master 6 19%
Other 4 13%
Unspecified 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Other 7 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 28%
Unspecified 8 25%
Social Sciences 4 13%
Psychology 4 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Other 4 13%

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
#2,733,405
of 11,586,569 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#110
of 291 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,921
of 259,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,586,569 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 291 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 259,004 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 2 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