| Title |
What Pauline Doesn’t Know: Using Guided Fiction Writing to Educate Health Professionals about Cultural Competence
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Medical Humanities, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10912-016-9430-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lise Saffran |
| Abstract |
Research linking reading literary fiction to empathy supports health humanities programs in which reflective writing accompanies close readings of texts, both to explore principles of storytelling (narrative arc and concrete language) and to promote an examination of biases in care. Little attention has been paid to the possible contribution of guided fiction-writing in health humanities curricula toward enhancing cultural competence among health professionals, both clinical and community-based. Through an analysis of the short story "Pie Dance" by Molly Giles, juxtaposed with descriptions of specific writing exercises, this paper explains how the demands of writing fiction promote cultural competency. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 10 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 21% |
| Linguistics | 2 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 12 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 2021.
All research outputs
#5,765,054
of 22,955,959 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Humanities
#139
of 417 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,629
of 421,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Humanities
#6
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,955,959 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 417 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 421,143 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.