↓ Skip to main content

Enhancing second-order empathy in medical practice by supplementing patients’ narratives with certainties

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Enhancing second-order empathy in medical practice by supplementing patients’ narratives with certainties
Published in
BMC Medical Education, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1145-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

José María Ariso

Abstract

Most scholars agree that empathy is one of the keys for medical education, but it is not yet clear precisely how this term should be defined. Currently, the predominant tendency in this area consists in considering empathy within the context of narrative medicine or, more specifically, within the interaction theory instead of the simulation theory of empathy. A significant development of the interaction theory is "second-order empathy". After describing the outlines of this kind of empathy, I suggest that the practitioner should also inquire about the patient's certainties - in Wittgenstein's sense - in order the better to enrich and understand her narrative. Besides offering examples of how certainties may contribute to reaching a clearer perspective of the patient's narratives and, thus, to strengthen second-order empathy with her, guidelines are provided to train medical students in identifying such certainties.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 21%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Librarian 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 9 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Linguistics 2 7%
Neuroscience 2 7%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 9 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 19 March 2018.
All research outputs
#8,779,614
of 16,551,934 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,104
of 2,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,557
of 283,082 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,551,934 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 283,082 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.