ArticleAnnals of medicine2024
The curious physician: exploring the role of curiosity in professionalism, patient care, and well-being.
Article in Annals of medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modern teaching for clinical education involving manual therapy: a 6-pillar approach.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2026Review
- Promoting well-being through creativity: a mixed-methods study on integrating studio art into education for students in medical fields in Japan.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Exploring curiosity in undergraduate medical education: a thematic analysis.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Factors influencing the pediatric hospitalization experience: a narrative review with recommendations for improvement.Translational pediatrics · 2025Review
- AI chatbots as 'pocket doctors': intimate health support for young women in Lebanon.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Curiosity and surprise differentially affect memory depending on age.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCuriosity is a fundamental human trait that drives learning and exploration. However, research on curiosity has received little attention in the medical field, despite its potential to enhance knowledge acquisition, work performance, and psychosocial well-being. This study aimed to address part of this gap by investigating physicians' perspectives on their personal experiences with curiosity and its role in their professional practice and medical training. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis qualitative study was conducted with 12 physicians from the University of Heidelberg Medical Hospital. Participants were contacted randomly
resultsThe interviewees highlighted three main areas regarding curiosity's importance [1]: as a driving force for (lifelong) education [2], in building empathetic physician-patient relationships, and [3] as a core quality of a good researcher. They primarily linked curiosity with positive emotions, while the non-expression of curiosity was associated with dissatisfaction, boredom, and exhaustion. Factors such as heavy workloads, time constraints, stress, and lack of autonomy inhibit their curiosity, while varied activities, professional exchange with colleagues, and exposure to new challenges foster it. Physicians' perspectives on the link between burnout and curiosity were not consistent. Interestingly, some viewed curiosity as protective against burnout, while others saw excessive curiosity as a potential source of frustration and burnout.
conclusionThis study represents the first attempt to explore physicians' perspectives on curiosity in medicine. The findings highlight the potential importance of curiosity in shaping medical professionalism and improving patient care. However, its pursuit is hampered by the challenging working conditions faced by doctors, suggesting a need for enhanced support and cultivation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.