↓ Skip to main content

Creative Writing as a Medical Instrument

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Humanities, September 2013
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 (#16 of 425)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
Title
Creative Writing as a Medical Instrument
Published in
Journal of Medical Humanities, September 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10912-013-9243-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jay M. Baruch

Abstract

Listening and responding to patients' stories for over 20 years as an emergency physician has strengthened my appreciation for the many ways that the skills and principles drawn from writing fiction double as necessary clinical skills. The best medicine doesn't work on the wrong story, and the stories patients tell sometimes feel like first drafts-vital and fragile works-in-progress. Increasingly complex health challenges compounded by social, financial, and psychological burdens make for stories that are difficult to articulate and comprehend. In this essay, I argue that healthcare providers need to think like creative writers and the skills and sensitivities necessary to story construction deserve a vital space in medical education. A thorough understanding of story anatomy and the imaginative flexibility to work stories into open spaces serve as antidotes to the reductive nature of clinical decision making and have implications as patient safety and risk management strategies. The examples that I have selected demonstrate how thinking like a creative writer functions at the bedside, providing tools for clinical excellence and empathy. This approach asks that we re-imagine the importance of story in clinical care: from a vehicle to a diagnosis to its place as a critical destination.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
South Africa 1 2%
Unknown 49 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 16%
Student > Master 6 12%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Lecturer 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 14 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 35%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Psychology 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Arts and Humanities 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 16 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 17 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,283,029
of 25,394,081 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Humanities
#16
of 425 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,049
of 209,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Humanities
#1
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,081 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 425 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 209,103 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them