↓ Skip to main content

Epistemological and methodological paradoxes: secondary care specialists and their challenges working with adolescents with medically unexplained symptoms

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Mental Health Systems, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Epistemological and methodological paradoxes: secondary care specialists and their challenges working with adolescents with medically unexplained symptoms
Published in
International Journal of Mental Health Systems, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13033-018-0232-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Silje Vagli Østbye, Catharina Elisabeth Arfwedson Wang, Ida Pauline Høilo Granheim, Kjersti Elisabeth Kristensen, Mette Bech Risør

Abstract

Early adolescence is considered a critical period for the development of chronic and recurrent medically unexplained symptoms (MUS), and referrals and system-initiated patient trajectories often lead to an excess of examinations and hospitalizations in the cross-section between mental and somatic specialist care for this group of patients. Dimensions of the relationship and communication between clinician and patient are shown in primary care studies to be decisive for subsequent illness pathways, often creating adverse effects, but knowledge on clinical communication in specialist care is still scarce. This study explores communicative challenges specific to clinical encounters between health professionals and adolescent patients in specialist care, as presented through interviews and focus group data with highly experienced specialists working in adolescent and child services at a Norwegian university hospital. The results are presented in a conceptual model describing the epistemological and methodological paradoxes inherent in the clinical uncertainty of MUS. Within these paradoxes, the professionals try to solve the dilemmas by being creative in their communication strategies; applying metaphors and other rhetorical devices to explain complex ideas; creating clinical prototypes as a way to explain symptoms and guide them in clinical action; relying on principles from patient-centered care involving empathy; and trying to balance expertise and humility. The challenges in communication arise as a result of opposing discourses on biomedicine, family, health and adolescence that create dilemmas in everyday clinical work. By moving away from a positivist and biomedical framework towards an interpretive paradigm, where culturally derived and historically situated interpretations are used to understand the social life-world of the patient, one can create a more humane health service in accordance with ideals of patient-centered care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Master 3 7%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 12 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Linguistics 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 16 36%
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 24 September 2018.
All research outputs
#4,049,289
of 23,103,903 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Mental Health Systems
#243
of 721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,045
of 340,828 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Mental Health Systems
#12
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,903 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 721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 340,828 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.