↓ Skip to main content

Medical professionalism: what the study of literature can contribute to the conversation

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#36 of 227)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 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
Medical professionalism: what the study of literature can contribute to the conversation
Published in
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13010-015-0030-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johanna Shapiro, Lois L. Nixon, Stephen E. Wear, David J. Doukas

Abstract

Medical school curricula, although traditionally and historically dominated by science, have generally accepted, appreciated, and welcomed the inclusion of literature over the past several decades. Recent concerns about medical professional formation have led to discussions about the specific role and contribution of literature and stories. In this article, we demonstrate how professionalism and the study of literature can be brought into relationship through critical and interrogative interactions based in the literary skill of close reading. Literature in medicine can question the meaning of "professionalism" itself (as well as its virtues), thereby resisting standardization in favor of diversity method and of outcome. Literature can also actively engage learners with questions about the human condition, providing a larger context within which to consider professional identity formation. Our fundamental contention is that, within a medical education framework, literature is highly suited to assist learners in questioning conventional thinking and assumptions about various dimensions of professionalism.

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 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Unknown 127 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 10%
Student > Master 13 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 10%
Lecturer 10 8%
Other 39 30%
Unknown 24 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 43%
Social Sciences 10 8%
Philosophy 5 4%
Arts and Humanities 5 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 30 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 20 July 2020.
All research outputs
#1,719,750
of 24,723,421 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#36
of 227 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,281
of 268,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,723,421 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 227 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 268,395 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 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.