↓ Skip to main content

Cultivating Humility and Diagnostic Openness in Clinical Judgment

Overview of attention for article published in AMA Journal of Ethics, October 2017
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
38 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Cultivating Humility and Diagnostic Openness in Clinical Judgment
Published in
AMA Journal of Ethics, October 2017
DOI 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.10.ecas1-1710
Pubmed ID
Authors

John R Stone

Abstract

In this case, a physician rejects a patient's concerns that tainted water is harming the patient and her community. Stereotypes and biases regarding socioeconomic class and race/ethnicity, constraining diagnostic frameworks, and fixed first impressions could skew the physician's judgment. This paper narratively illustrates how cultivating humility could help the physician truly hear the patient's suggestions. The discussion builds on the multifaceted concept of cultural humility as a lifelong journey that addresses not only stereotypes and biases but also power inequalities and community inequities. Insurgent multiculturalism is a complementary concept. Through epistemic humility-which includes both intellectual and emotional components-and admitting uncertainty, physicians can enhance patients' and families' epistemic authority and health agency.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 12%
Librarian 2 8%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 7 27%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 19%
Social Sciences 2 8%
Philosophy 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 4 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 31 January 2021.
All research outputs
#1,667,610
of 33,201,260 outputs
Outputs from AMA Journal of Ethics
#317
of 1,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,405
of 352,856 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AMA Journal of Ethics
#10
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,201,260 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 1,867 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 352,856 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.