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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Title |
Cognitive Enhancement: Perceptions Among Parents of Children with Disabilities
|
---|---|
Published in |
Neuroethics, February 2014
|
DOI | 10.1007/s12152-014-9201-8 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Natalie Ball, Gregor Wolbring |
Abstract |
Cognitive enhancement is an increasingly discussed topic and policy suggestions have been put forward. We present here empirical data of views of parents of children with and without cognitive disabilities. Analysis of the interviews revealed six primary overarching themes: meanings of health and treatment; the role of medicine; harm; the 'good' parent; normality and self-perception; and ability. Interestingly none of the parents used the term ethics and only one parent used the term moral twice. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Canada | 2 | 33% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
Scientists | 2 | 33% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 70 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 13 | 19% |
Researcher | 9 | 13% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 11% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 10% |
Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
Other | 14 | 20% |
Unknown | 12 | 17% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Psychology | 18 | 26% |
Social Sciences | 12 | 17% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 7% |
Philosophy | 4 | 6% |
Arts and Humanities | 4 | 6% |
Other | 14 | 20% |
Unknown | 13 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 August 2017.
All research outputs
#1,204,492
of 22,876,619 outputs
Outputs from Neuroethics
#33
of 418 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,079
of 224,548 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuroethics
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,876,619 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 418 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 224,548 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.