↓ Skip to main content

Three visions of doctoring: a Gadamerian dialogue

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Health Sciences Education, April 2018
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 (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
Three visions of doctoring: a Gadamerian dialogue
Published in
Advances in Health Sciences Education, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10459-018-9824-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benjamin Chin-Yee, Atara Messinger, L. Trevor Young

Abstract

Medicine in the twenty-first century faces an 'identity crisis,' as it grapples with the emergence of various 'ways of knowing,' from evidence-based and translational medicine, to narrative-based and personalized medicine. While each of these approaches has uniquely contributed to the advancement of patient care, this pluralism is not without tension. Evidence-based medicine is not necessary individualized; personalized medicine may be individualized but is not necessarily person-centered. As novel technologies and big data continue to proliferate today, the focus of medical practice is shifting away from the dialogic encounter between doctor and patient, threatening the loss of humanism that many view as integral to medicine's identity. As medical trainees, we struggle to synthesize medicine's diverse and evolving 'ways of knowing' and to create a vision of doctoring that integrates new forms of medical knowledge into the provision of person-centered care. In search of answers, we turned to twentieth-century philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer, whose unique outlook on "health" and "healing," we believe, offers a way forward in navigating medicine's 'messy pluralism.' Drawing inspiration from Gadamer's emphasis on dialogue and 'practical wisdom' (phronesis), we initiated a dialogue with the dean of our medical school to address the question of how medical trainees and practicing clinicians alike can work to create a more harmonious pluralism in medicine today. We propose that implementing a pluralistic approach ultimately entails 'bridging' the current divide between scientific theory and the practical art of healing, and involves an iterative and dialogic process of asking questions and seeking answers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 22%
Other 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 12 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 12%
Social Sciences 5 12%
Psychology 3 7%
Unspecified 2 5%
Philosophy 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 19 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 12 September 2019.
All research outputs
#2,543,916
of 24,980,180 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#91
of 933 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,494
of 302,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#4
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,980,180 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 933 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. 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 302,408 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.