↓ Skip to main content

Courage and Compassion: Virtues in Caring for So-Called “Difficult” Patients

Overview of attention for article published in The AMA Journal of Ethic, April 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)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
56 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Courage and Compassion: Virtues in Caring for So-Called “Difficult” Patients
Published in
The AMA Journal of Ethic, April 2017
DOI 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.4.medu2-1704
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Hawking, Farr A Curlin, John D Yoon

Abstract

What, if anything, can medical ethics offer to assist in the care of the "difficult" patient? We begin with a discussion of virtue theory and its application to medical ethics. We conceptualize the "difficult" patient as an example of a "moral stress test" that especially challenges the physician's character, requiring the good physician to display the virtues of courage and compassion. We then consider two clinical vignettes to flesh out how these virtues might come into play in the care of "difficult" patients, and we conclude with a brief proposal for how medical educators might cultivate these essential character traits in physicians-in-training.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 56 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 14 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 36%
Psychology 4 9%
Philosophy 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 17 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 10 February 2018.
All research outputs
#1,374,309
of 26,240,084 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#407
of 2,800 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,023
of 327,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#18
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,240,084 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 2,800 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 327,597 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 42 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 57% of its contemporaries.