↓ Skip to main content

Constructing denial as a disease object: accounts by medical students meeting dying patients

Overview of attention for article published in Sociology of Health & Illness, August 2012
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 (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Constructing denial as a disease object: accounts by medical students meeting dying patients
Published in
Sociology of Health & Illness, August 2012
DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2012.01487.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erica Borgstrom, Stephen Barclay, Simon Cohn

Abstract

As part of the general shift in contemporary healthcare from a focus on specific diseases to treating the whole person, doctors are now expected to be reflective and engage empathetically with patients. Yet, the context of end of life potentially confounds this commitment. Here we draw on the written submissions of UK medical students confronting dying patients to offer insight into a range of entangled issues. Although the exercise is designed to highlight the value of listening to patients and to encourage reflective practice, the experience of ultimately not being able to treat or cure frequently challenges the students' understanding of the central purpose of clinical care and their future role as doctors. Because they invariably draw on the notion of 'good death', whenever they have to make sense of patient behaviour deemed as irrational or obstructive the students employ the concept of 'denial' as a strategic category. In this context denial is referred to as a disease-like object that the students feel they can, and should, diagnose and treat. Such conceptual operations consequently illustrate a tension arising from trying to acknowledge the value of a whole-patient approach while simultaneously reproducing the emphasis placed on identifying those discrete elements that determine legitimate medical intervention.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 4%
Brazil 1 2%
Colombia 1 2%
Unknown 49 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 23%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 12 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 34%
Social Sciences 13 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 13%
Psychology 5 9%
Unspecified 4 8%
Other 6 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 09 May 2017.
All research outputs
#1,666,065
of 12,423,293 outputs
Outputs from Sociology of Health & Illness
#428
of 1,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,047
of 122,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sociology of Health & Illness
#10
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,423,293 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,244 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 122,139 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 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 52% of its contemporaries.