↓ Skip to main content

Reconsidering the role of language in medicine

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, June 2018
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 (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Reconsidering the role of language in medicine
Published in
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13010-018-0058-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Berkeley Franz, John W. Murphy

Abstract

Despite an expansive literature on communication in medicine, the role of language is dealt with mostly indirectly. Recently, narrative medicine has emerged as a strategy to improve doctor-patient communication and integrate patient perspectives. However, even in this field which is predicated on language use, scholars have not specifically reflected on how language functions in medicine. In this theoretical paper, the authors consider how different models of language use, which have been proposed in the philosophical literature, might be applied to communication in medicine. In particular, the authors contrast the traditional, indexical thesis of language with new models that focus on interpretation instead of standardization. The authors demonstrate how paying close attention to the role of language in medicine provides a philosophical foundation for supporting recent changes in doctor-patient communication. In particular, interpretive models are at the foundation of new approaches such as narrative medicine, that emphasize listening to patient stories, rather than merely collecting information. Ultimately, debates regarding the role of language which have largely resided in non-medical literatures, have important implications for describing communication in medicine. In particular, interpretive models of language use provide an important rationale for facilitating a more robust dialogue between doctors and patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Master 5 9%
Researcher 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 19 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 25%
Social Sciences 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 20 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 23 October 2019.
All research outputs
#3,118,759
of 24,625,114 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#86
of 226 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,517
of 335,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#6
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,625,114 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 226 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 335,046 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.