↓ Skip to main content

Enhancing second-order empathy in medical practice by supplementing patients’ narratives with certainties

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Enhancing second-order empathy in medical practice by supplementing patients’ narratives with certainties
Published in
BMC Medical Education, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1145-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

José María Ariso

Abstract

Most scholars agree that empathy is one of the keys for medical education, but it is not yet clear precisely how this term should be defined. Currently, the predominant tendency in this area consists in considering empathy within the context of narrative medicine or, more specifically, within the interaction theory instead of the simulation theory of empathy. A significant development of the interaction theory is "second-order empathy". After describing the outlines of this kind of empathy, I suggest that the practitioner should also inquire about the patient's certainties - in Wittgenstein's sense - in order the better to enrich and understand her narrative. Besides offering examples of how certainties may contribute to reaching a clearer perspective of the patient's narratives and, thus, to strengthen second-order empathy with her, guidelines are provided to train medical students in identifying such certainties.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 20%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 2 4%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 15 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Psychology 3 7%
Linguistics 2 4%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 16 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 19 March 2018.
All research outputs
#13,067,725
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,548
of 3,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,329
of 333,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#33
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,370 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 333,763 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.