Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33635761›Full record

ArticleThe Permanente journal2020

Interfaith Dialogue and Sir William Osler.

Jonathan Kopel, Mark Webb, Carmine Gorga

Abstract readHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Article in The Permanente journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jonathan KopelTexas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, TX.
Mark WebbPhilosophy Department, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX.
Carmine GorgaSomist Institute, Gloucester, MA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

None: In recent years, the US has become extensively polarized across social, political, and religious divides. As the cultural, political, and social divides continue to grow, the medical establishment has shown similar divisions between clinicians and patients. However, an inclusive dialogue that recognizes the intellectual and interpersonal boundaries of opposing groups and traditions would provide an avenue toward mutual understanding and further collaboration toward a common goal and solution. One such method for building bridges between opposing groups can be found in interfaith dialogue. The goal of interfaith dialogue is not merely to exchange pleasantries but also to develop a mutual collaboration addressing moral and ethical issues with a unified voice. This is achieved through moving beyond separation and suspicion, inquiring more deeply, sharing both the easy and the difficult parts, moving beyond safe territory, and exploring spiritual practices from other traditions. A physician who exemplified many aspects interfaith dialogue in his clinical practice was the late Sir William Osler. Through examining Osler's application of interfaith dialogue, we may develop a framework by which clinicians can actively build new bridges and dialogue between their patients and society.

Indexed as

PhysiciansHistory, 20th CenturyHumansMoralsMotivation

Identifiers

PMID33635761
PMCPMC8803255

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.