↓ Skip to main content

Building bridges between doctors and patients: the design and pilot evaluation of a training session in argumentation for chronic pain experts

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Building bridges between doctors and patients: the design and pilot evaluation of a training session in argumentation for chronic pain experts
Published in
BMC Medical Education, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12909-015-0374-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claudia Zanini, Piercarlo Sarzi-Puttini, Fabiola Atzeni, Manuela Di Franco, Sara Rubinelli

Abstract

Shared decision-making requires doctors to be competent in exchanging views with patients to identify the appropriate course of action. In this paper we focus on the potential of a course in argumentation as a promising way to empower doctors in presenting their viewpoints and addressing those of patients. Argumentation is the communication process in which the speaker, through the use of reasons, aims to convince the interlocutor of the acceptability of a viewpoint. The value of argumentation skills for doctors has been addressed in the literature. Yet, there is no research on what a course on argumentation might look like. In this paper, we present the content and format of a training session in argumentation for doctors and discuss some insights gained from a pilot study that examined doctors' perceived strengths and limitations vis-à-vis this training. The training session (eight hours) combined different aspects from prominent theories of argumentation and was designed to strengthen doctors' argumentative discussion skills. A convenient, self-selected sample of 17 doctors who were experts in the field of chronic pain participated in the training and evaluated it via a feedback form and semi-structured interviews. The participants found that the training session gave a structure to types of communication they use to interact with their patients, and taught them techniques that can increase their effectiveness. Moreover, it provided tools to help address some of the challenges of modern doctor-patient interactions, including dealing with patients' unrealistic expectations and medically inaccurate beliefs, and reaching agreement when there are differences of opinion. This study enriches the research in the field of medical education. In line with the findings of studies that explore the value of argumentation in different fields, argumentative discussion skills can be applied by doctors to express their views and to account for the views of patients without patronizing the interaction. In this paper, we provide a basis to reflect on the value of argumentation in enhancing patients' right to autonomy and self-determination in interactions with their doctors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 19%
Other 6 13%
Student > Master 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Other 14 30%
Unknown 4 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Psychology 5 11%
Linguistics 4 9%
Social Sciences 4 9%
Other 13 28%
Unknown 6 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 22 October 2015.
All research outputs
#4,159,892
of 23,314,015 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#683
of 3,437 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,201
of 267,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#10
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,314,015 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,437 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 done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 267,400 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.