↓ Skip to main content

How do medical specialists value their own intercultural communication behaviour? A reflective practice study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, August 2016
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 (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
11 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
Title
How do medical specialists value their own intercultural communication behaviour? A reflective practice study
Published in
BMC Medical Education, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0727-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

E. Paternotte, F. Scheele, T. R. van Rossum, M. C. Seeleman, A. J. J. A. Scherpbier, A. M. van Dulmen

Abstract

Intercultural communication behaviour of doctors with patients requires specific intercultural communication skills, which do not seem structurally implemented in medical education. It is unclear what motivates doctors to apply intercultural communication skills. We investigated how purposefully medical specialists think they practise intercultural communication and how they reflect on their own communication behaviour. Using reflective practice, 17 medical specialists independently watched two fragments of videotapes of their own outpatient consultations: one with a native patient and one with a non-native patient. They were asked to reflect on their own communication and on challenges they experience in intercultural communication. The interviews were open coded and analysed using thematic network analysis. The participants experienced only little differences in their communication with native and non-native patients. They mainly mentioned generic communication skills, such as listening and checking if the patient understood. Many participants experienced their communication with non-native patients positively. The participants mentioned critical incidences of intercultural communication: language barriers, cultural differences, the presence of an interpreter, the role of the family and the atmosphere. Despite extensive experience in intercultural communication, the participants of this study noticed hardly any differences between their own communication behaviour with native and non-native patients. This could mean that they are unaware that consultations with non-native patients might cause them to communicate differently than with native patients. The reason for this could be that medical specialists lack the skills to reflect on the process of the communication. The participants focused on their generic communication skills rather than on specific intercultural communication skills, which could either indicate their lack of awareness, or demonstrate that practicing generic communication is more important than applying specific intercultural communication. They mentioned well-known critical incidences of ICC: language barriers, cultural differences, the presence of an interpreter, the role of the family and the atmosphere. Nevertheless, they showed a remarkably enthusiastic attitude overall was noteworthy. A strategy to make doctors more aware of their intercultural communication behaviour could be a combination of experiential learning and ICC training, for example a module with reflective practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 113 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Student > Master 13 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 10%
Researcher 10 9%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 38 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 9%
Social Sciences 8 7%
Arts and Humanities 6 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 4%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 45 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 May 2023.
All research outputs
#2,369,785
of 25,070,356 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#361
of 3,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,175
of 349,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#7
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,070,356 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,897 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 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 349,676 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.