↓ Skip to main content

Conceptualizing suffering and pain

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#23 of 236)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
58 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
reddit
2 Redditors

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
200 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
Conceptualizing suffering and pain
Published in
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13010-017-0049-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Noelia Bueno-Gómez

Abstract

This article aims to contribute to a better conceptualization of pain and suffering by providing non-essential and non-naturalistic definitions of both phenomena. Contributions of classical evidence-based medicine, the humanistic turn in medicine, as well as the phenomenology and narrative theories of suffering and pain, together with certain conceptions of the person beyond them (the mind-body dichotomy, Cassel's idea of persons as "intact beings") are critically discussed with such purpose. A philosophical methodology is used, based on the review of existent literature on the topic and the argumentation in favor of what are found as better definitions of suffering and pain. Pain can be described in neurological terms but cognitive awareness, interpretation, behavioral dispositions, as well as cultural and educational factors have a decisive influence on pain perception. Suffering is proposed to be defined as an unpleasant or even anguishing experience, severely affecting a person at a psychophysical and existential level. Pain and suffering are considered unpleasant. However, the provided definitions neither include the idea that pain and suffering can attack and even destroy the self nor the idea that they can constructively expand the self; both perspectives can b e equally useful for managing pain and suffering, but they are not defining features of the same. Including the existential dimension in the definition of suffering highlights the relevance of suffering in life and its effect on one's own attachment to the world (including personal management, or the cultural and social influences which shape it). An understanding of pain and suffering life experiences is proposed, meaning that they are considered aspects of a person's life, and the self is the ever-changing sum of these (and other) experiences. The provided definitions will be useful to the identification of pain and suffering, to the discussion of how to relieve them, and to a better understanding of how they are expressed and experienced. They lay the groundwork for further research in all these areas, with the twofold aim of a) avoiding epistemological mistakes and moral injustices, and b) highlighting the limitations of medicine in the treatment of suffering and pain.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 58 X users 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 200 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 200 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 14%
Student > Bachelor 19 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 8%
Other 11 6%
Other 30 15%
Unknown 67 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 12%
Psychology 18 9%
Social Sciences 11 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 4%
Other 39 20%
Unknown 70 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 01 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,192,935
of 25,784,004 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#23
of 236 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,851
of 330,533 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,784,004 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 236 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 330,533 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 92% 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 all of them