↓ Skip to main content

Fragility, uncertainty, and healthcare

Overview of attention for article published in Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, February 2016
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 (#32 of 292)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
Fragility, uncertainty, and healthcare
Published in
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11017-016-9350-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wendy A. Rogers, Mary J. Walker

Abstract

Medicine seeks to overcome one of the most fundamental fragilities of being human, the fragility of good health. No matter how robust our current state of health, we are inevitably susceptible to future illness and disease, while current disease serves to remind us of various frailties inherent in the human condition. This article examines the relationship between fragility and uncertainty with regard to health, and argues that there are reasons to accept rather than deny at least some forms of uncertainty. In situations of current ill health, both patients and doctors seek to manage this fragility through diagnoses that explain suffering and provide some certainty about prognosis as well as treatment. However, both diagnosis and prognosis are inevitably uncertain to some degree, leading to questions about how much uncertainty health professionals should disclose, and how to manage when diagnosis is elusive, leaving patients in uncertainty. We argue that patients can benefit when they are able to acknowledge, and appropriately accept, some uncertainty. Healthy people may seek to protect the fragility of their good health by undertaking preventative measures including various tests and screenings. However, these attempts to secure oneself against the onset of biological fragility can cause harm by creating rather than eliminating uncertainty. Finally, we argue that there are good reasons for accepting the fragility of health, along with the associated uncertainties.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 3%
Unknown 31 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 22%
Student > Master 5 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 8 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 22%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 9%
Psychology 3 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 9 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 04 November 2018.
All research outputs
#2,709,090
of 22,852,911 outputs
Outputs from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#32
of 292 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,578
of 298,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#2
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,852,911 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 292 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 298,745 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 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.