↓ Skip to main content

Novel Paths to Relevance: How Clinical Ethics Committees Promote Ethical Reflection

Overview of attention for article published in HEC Forum, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
6 Mendeley
Title
Novel Paths to Relevance: How Clinical Ethics Committees Promote Ethical Reflection
Published in
HEC Forum, August 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10730-015-9291-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Morten Magelssen, Reidar Pedersen, Reidun Førde

Abstract

How may clinical ethics committees (CECs) inspire ethical reflection among healthcare professionals? How may they deal with organizational ethics issues? In recent years, Norwegian CECs have attempted different activites that stretch or go beyond the standard trio of education, consultation, and policy work. We studied the novel activities of Norwegian CECs by examining annual reports and interviewing CEC members. Through qualitative analysis we identified nine categories of novel CEC activities, which we describe by way of examples. In light of the findings, we argue that some novel working methods may be well suited to promote ethical reflection among clinicians, and that the CEC may be a suitable venue for discussing issues of organizational ethics.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 33%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 17%
Student > Bachelor 1 17%
Librarian 1 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 17%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Philosophy 2 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 17%
Unspecified 1 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 16 August 2016.
All research outputs
#6,810,986
of 12,319,703 outputs
Outputs from HEC Forum
#45
of 89 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,584
of 241,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HEC Forum
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,319,703 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 89 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 241,676 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 57% 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