| Title |
From P0 to P6 medicine, a model of highly participatory, narrative, interactive, and “augmented” medicine: some considerations on Salvatore Iaconesi’s clinical story
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s38578 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicola Luigi Bragazzi |
| Abstract |
Salvatore Iaconesi was recently diagnosed with a brain tumor. He decided to share his clinical records not only with doctors but with everybody who wishes to find him a cure. "Because cure is not unique," he emphasizes "there are cures for the body and cures for the soul, and everyone, from a painter to a musician, can find me a cure. Please, feel free to take my clinical history for example and let it become a game, a video, a music, a picture, whatever you like." The emblematic hallmark of the changing times, Salvatore Iaconesi's case is an example of how many profound revolutions and steps medicine has undertaken during the past few centuries. Stemming from a form of remote medical paternalism and arriving at the concept of a therapeutic alliance, medicine nowadays faces challenges and opportunities at a level before unforeseeable and unimaginable. The new concept of P6 medicine (personalized, predictive, preventive, participatory, psychocognitive, and public) is discussed, together with its profound implications. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 25% |
| Portugal | 1 | 25% |
| Austria | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 3 | 4% |
| Colombia | 1 | 1% |
| India | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 78 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 18% |
| Researcher | 14 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 17 | 20% |
| Unknown | 14 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 20% |
| Computer Science | 7 | 8% |
| Engineering | 7 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 20 | 24% |
| Unknown | 21 | 25% |
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 16 June 2018.
All research outputs
#14,600,553
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#744
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,926
of 212,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#13
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 212,991 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.