↓ Skip to main content

From Doctors’ Stories to Doctors’ Stories, and Back Again

Overview of attention for article published in The AMA Journal of Ethic, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
146 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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.
Title
From Doctors’ Stories to Doctors’ Stories, and Back Again
Published in
The AMA Journal of Ethic, March 2017
DOI 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.3.nlit1-1703
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcia Day Childress

Abstract

Stories have always been central to medicine, but during the twentieth century bioscience all but eclipsed narrative's presence in medical practice. In Doctors' Stories, published in 1991, Kathryn Montgomery excavated medicine's narrative foundations and functions to reveal new possibilities for how to conceive and characterize medicine. Physicians' engagement with stories has since flourished, especially through the narrative medicine movement, although in the twenty-first century this has been challenged by the health care industry's business-minded and data-driven clinical systems. But doctors' stories-and Montgomery's text-remain crucial, schooling clinicians in reflection, ethical awareness, and resilience. Physicians who write even short, 55-word reflective stories can hold to humanistic and ethical understandings of patient care and of themselves as healers even as they practice in systematized settings and employ evidence-based expertise.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 146 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 27%
Student > Master 6 12%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 12 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Arts and Humanities 3 6%
Linguistics 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 17 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 90. 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 02 February 2018.
All research outputs
#490,832
of 26,114,666 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#128
of 2,797 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,094
of 327,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#6
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,114,666 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,797 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 327,943 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.