↓ Skip to main content

Practical wisdom in complex medical practices: a critical proposal

Overview of attention for article published in Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Practical wisdom in complex medical practices: a critical proposal
Published in
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, June 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11019-018-9846-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. M. M. L. Bontemps-Hommen, A. Baart, F. T. H. Vosman

Abstract

In recent times, daily, ordinary medical practices have incontrovertibly been developing under the condition of complexity. Complexity jeopardizes the moral core of practicing medicine: helping people, with their illnesses and suffering, in a medically competent way. Practical wisdom (a modification of the Aristotelian phronèsis) has been proposed as part of the solution to navigate complexity, aiming at the provision of morally good care. Practical wisdom should help practitioners to maneuver in complexity, where the presupposed linear ways of operating prove to be insufficient. However, this solution is unsatisfactory, because the proposed versions of practical wisdom are too individualistic of nature, while physicians are continuously operating in varying teams, and dealing with complicated technologies and pressing structures. A second point of critique is, that these versions are theory based, and thus insufficiently attuned to the actual context of everyday medical practices. Now, our proposal is to use an approach of practical wisdom that enables medical practices to counter the complexity issue and to re-invent the moral core of medical practicing as well. This implies a practice oriented approach, as thematized by practice theory, qualitative empirical research from the inside, and abduction from actual performed practical wisdom towards an apt understanding of phronèsis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 15%
Unspecified 2 6%
Lecturer 1 3%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 14 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 3 9%
Philosophy 2 6%
Arts and Humanities 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Unspecified 2 6%
Other 7 21%
Unknown 15 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 June 2018.
All research outputs
#18,778,496
of 23,270,775 outputs
Outputs from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#476
of 600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,659
of 328,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#10
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,270,775 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 600 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 328,621 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.