↓ Skip to main content

Cultural diversity teaching and issues of uncertainty: the findings of a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, April 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
120 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cultural diversity teaching and issues of uncertainty: the findings of a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Medical Education, April 2007
DOI 10.1186/1472-6920-7-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nisha Dogra, James Giordano, Nicholas France

Abstract

There is considerable ambiguity in the subjective dimensions that comprise much of the relational dynamic of the clinical encounter. Comfort with this ambiguity, and recognition of the potential uncertainty of particular domains of medicine (e.g.--cultural factors of illness expression, value bias in diagnoses, etc) is an important facet of medical education. This paper begins by defining ambiguity and uncertainty as relevant to clinical practice. Studies have shown differing patterns of students' tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty that appear to reflect extant attitudinal predispositions toward technology, objectivity, culture, value- and theory-ladeness, and the need for self-examination. This paper reports on those findings specifically related to the theme of uncertainty as relevant to teaching about cultural diversity. Its focus is to identify how and where the theme of certainty arose in the teaching and learning of cultural diversity, what were the attitudes toward this theme and topic, and how these attitudes and responses reflect and inform this area of medical pedagogy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Pakistan 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Unknown 115 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 12%
Student > Master 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 8%
Other 32 27%
Unknown 27 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 33%
Social Sciences 16 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 6%
Psychology 4 3%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 30 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 January 2013.
All research outputs
#20,178,031
of 22,691,736 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#3,119
of 3,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,713
of 72,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,691,736 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,296 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 72,215 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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.