↓ Skip to main content

Graphic Pathographies and the Ethical Practice of Person-Centered Medicine

Overview of attention for article published in The AMA Journal of Ethic, February 2018
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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
twitter
89 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
Graphic Pathographies and the Ethical Practice of Person-Centered Medicine
Published in
The AMA Journal of Ethic, February 2018
DOI 10.1001/journalofethics.2018.20.2.medu2-1802
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kimberly R Myers, Michael D F Goldenberg

Abstract

Graphic medicine is a swiftly growing movement that explores, theoretically and practically, the use of comics in medical education and patient care. At the heart of graphic medicine are graphic pathographies, stories of illness conveyed in comic form. These stories are helpful tools for health care professionals who seek new insight into the personal, lived experience of illness and for patients who want to learn more about their disease from others who have actually experienced it. Featuring excerpts from five graphic pathographies, this essay illustrates how the medium can be used to educate patients and enhance empathy in health care professionals, particularly with regard to informed consent and end-of-life issues.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 89 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Librarian 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Lecturer 5 8%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 21 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 14%
Arts and Humanities 6 9%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Linguistics 1 2%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 26 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 117. 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 06 March 2023.
All research outputs
#376,176
of 26,316,305 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#107
of 2,811 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,491
of 454,753 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#4
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,316,305 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 2,811 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 454,753 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.