↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Recent trends in reproductive tourism and international surrogacy: ethical considerations and challenges for policy

Overview of attention for article published in Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#6 of 136)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Recent trends in reproductive tourism and international surrogacy: ethical considerations and challenges for policy
Published in
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, August 2015
DOI 10.2147/rmhp.s63862
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raywat Deonandan

Abstract

Reproductive tourism, or "cross-border reproductive care", is the phenomenon of people crossing international borders to access reproductive technologies. One of the fastest-growing categories of cross-border reproductive care is international surrogacy, the act of infertile clients traveling internationally to engage the paid services of foreign surrogates to carry their babies to term. It is a multibillion-dollar global industry presenting unique legal, ethical, and risk-management challenges. Clients tend to be price-sensitive, middle-income individuals seeking services from surrogates who in the global market are thought to be of quite low socioeconomic status. Risks are experienced by all parties involved in the transaction, including the client's countries of origin and destination. The risks to the surrogate evolve from the potential to exploit her economic vulnerability in order to encourage both consent and unfair pricing. Opportunities for policy development are explored.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 9 19%
Student > Master 9 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Student > Bachelor 8 17%
Researcher 5 10%
Other 9 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 18 38%
Unspecified 12 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 10 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. 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 17 January 2019.
All research outputs
#440,909
of 13,232,126 outputs
Outputs from Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
#6
of 136 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,928
of 238,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,232,126 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 136 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 238,137 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.