↓ Skip to main content

The Types of Trust Involved in American Muslim Healthcare Decisions: An Exploratory Qualitative Study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Religion & Health, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
The Types of Trust Involved in American Muslim Healthcare Decisions: An Exploratory Qualitative Study
Published in
Journal of Religion & Health, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10943-017-0387-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aasim I. Padela, Liese Pruitt, Saleha Mallick

Abstract

Trust in physicians and the healthcare system underlies some disparities noted among minority populations, yet a descriptive typology of different types of trust informing healthcare decisions among minority populations is limited. Using data from 13 focus groups with 102 American Muslims, we identified the types and influence of trust in healthcare decision-making. Participants conveyed four types of trust implicating their health-seeking behaviors-(I) trust in allopathic medicine, (II) trust in God, (III) trust in personal relationships, and (IV) trust in self. Healthcare disparity research can benefit from assessing how these types of trust are associated with health outcomes among minority populations so as to inform intervention programs that seek to enhance trust as a means to improve community health.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 18%
Unspecified 4 14%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Student > Master 2 7%
Other 13 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 39%
Unspecified 8 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 2 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 28 August 2017.
All research outputs
#6,148,317
of 11,667,520 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Religion & Health
#222
of 612 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,091
of 265,441 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Religion & Health
#7
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,667,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 612 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. 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 265,441 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 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.