Background: Effective communication with ill patients requires practice, yet, the traditional history overlooks patients' personal stories. This information is vital to determining goals of care and facilitates partnership by building trust. Objective: We implemented a narrative medicine exercise for students during their palliative medicine rotation to highlight humanism. Impact was determined through thematic analysis of students' reflections. Design: Students elicited "what matters most" to patients, transcribing this plus a personal reflection. Using an inductive and iterative approach, 100 reflections were analyzed, developing codes then broader themes. Results: Four main themes (Getting to know the patient, Student Reaction, Building-blocks of patient-physician relationship, Student Personal Insights) were identified, with 15 subthemes. Conclusion: The power of uncovering patients' backgrounds and values was demonstrated, reinforcing a palliative medicine approach. Analysis showed a positive impact and the possibility of change to future practice. The intervention was feasible, well received, and encouraged reflection on the physician-patient relationship beyond the medical domain.
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 21 April 2023.
All research outputs
#15,872,485
of 23,578,918 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Palliative Medicine
#2,325
of 2,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,715
of 210,825 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Palliative Medicine
#17
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,578,918 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,999 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 210,825 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
