↓ Skip to main content

Cultivating Humility and Diagnostic Openness in Clinical Judgment

Overview of attention for article published in The AMA Journal of Ethic, October 2017
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 (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
43 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Cultivating Humility and Diagnostic Openness in Clinical Judgment
Published in
The AMA Journal of Ethic, October 2017
DOI 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.10.ecas1-1710
Pubmed ID
Authors

John R Stone

Abstract

In this case, a physician rejects a patient's concerns that tainted water is harming the patient and her community. Stereotypes and biases regarding socioeconomic class and race/ethnicity, constraining diagnostic frameworks, and fixed first impressions could skew the physician's judgment. This paper narratively illustrates how cultivating humility could help the physician truly hear the patient's suggestions. The discussion builds on the multifaceted concept of cultural humility as a lifelong journey that addresses not only stereotypes and biases but also power inequalities and community inequities. Insurgent multiculturalism is a complementary concept. Through epistemic humility-which includes both intellectual and emotional components-and admitting uncertainty, physicians can enhance patients' and families' epistemic authority and health agency.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 23%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 14%
Librarian 2 9%
Unspecified 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 5 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 23%
Unspecified 2 9%
Psychology 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 2 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 21 June 2021.
All research outputs
#1,177,255
of 25,992,468 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,476
of 334,780 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,992,468 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.9. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 334,780 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them