↓ Skip to main content

‘Trust my doctor, trust my pancreas’: trust as an emergent quality of social practice

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#49 of 161)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
‘Trust my doctor, trust my pancreas’: trust as an emergent quality of social practice
Published in
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13010-015-0029-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simon Cohn

Abstract

Growing attention is being paid to the importance of trust, and its corollaries such as mistrust and distrust, in health service and the central place they have in assessments of quality of care. Although initially focussing on doctor-patient relationships, more recent literature has broadened its remit to include trust held in more abstract entities, such as organisations and institutions. There has consequently been growing interest to develop rigorous and universal measures of trust. Drawing on illustrative ethnographic material from observational research in a UK diabetes clinic, this paper supports an approach that foregrounds social practice and resists conceiving trust as solely a psychological state that can be divorced from its context. Beyond exploring the less-than-conscious nature of trust, the interpretations attend to the extent to which trust practices are distributed across a range of actors. Data from clinical encounters reveal the extent to which matters of trust can emerge from the relationships between people, and sometimes people and things, as a result of a wide range of pragmatic concerns, and hence can usefully be conceived of as an extended property of a situation rather than a person. Trust is rarely explicitly articulated, but remains a subtle feature of experience that is frequently ineffable. A practice approach highlights some of the problems with adopting a general psychological or intellectualist conception of trust. In particular, assuming it is a sufficiently stable internal state that can be stored or measured not only transforms a diffuse and often ephemeral quality into a durable thing, but ultimately presents it as a generic state that has meaning independent of the specific relationships and context that achieve it. Emphasising the context-specific nature of trust practices does not dismiss the potential of matters of trust, when they emerge, to be transposed to other contexts. But it does highlight how, on each occasion, trust as a relational quality is ways 'done' or 'achieved' anew.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 39 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 31%
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 3 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 9 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 17%
Psychology 4 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 7%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 3 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 07 January 2016.
All research outputs
#916,789
of 11,347,519 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#49
of 161 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,306
of 228,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,347,519 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 161 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 228,709 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.