Dr Sally Frampton: List of publications

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title> <jats:p>Medical humanities teaching in UK medical schools has lacked cohesion, having developed opportunistically in different locations. Cohesion is necessary to develop an identifiable community of practice, but within that community there can be multiple readings of what ‘medical humanities’ are and how they may develop. This article details discussions held by medical humanities scholars teaching in UK medical schools at a workshop in January 2025 at the University of Oxford covering five key areas: the role of humanities scholars in medical schools, patients as partners in medical education, core curriculum teaching, intercalated teaching, and assessment. Our discussion highlights opportunities and challenges facing humanities teaching in UK medical schools today and calls for the creation of a community of medical humanities scholars working in UK medical education embracing diversity of opinion and practices. The article is specifically written as a synopsis of a brainstorming symposium.</jats:p>

Background: We investigated how social and contextual factors, including a pandemic, shape vaccine perceptions and attitudes among people living in KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa. We assessed how participants’ views, acceptance, and uptake of vaccines for a range of infectious diseases, may be influenced by experiences and events linked to the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We conducted 30 in-depth face-to-face and telephonic interviews with participants living in diverse rural and urban communities in two districts within KwaZulu-Natal. Participants were adults (≥ 18 years) consisting of ordinary citizens, traditional healers, and nurses. We combined non-representative convenience, snowballing and purposeful sampling techniques to recruit participants. Data collection was conducted in IsiZulu, and we used both inductive and deductive thematic analysis approaches to identify key themes linked to participants’ perceptions and attitudes towards vaccines. Findings: Our study participants were mostly those who had accepted vaccination. The main reasons given for vaccine uptake included understanding the importance of vaccines for disease prevention and survival, and securing the health of family members, the fear of death, government campaigns, vaccine mandates and penalties. Older participants (≥ 40 years) demonstrated more positive attitudes towards vaccines. Most participants downplayed the role of culture and religion in attitudes towards vaccines. However, some of the drivers of vaccine hesitancy were having an ancestral calling, medical pluralism, or local myths around the treatment of infections such as influenza and mumps, and a perceived depopulation agenda couched in mistrust and the use of incentives and penalties to force people to accept COVID-19 vaccines. Conclusion: Exploring what shapes attitudes towards vaccines in communities provides opportunities to understand the reasoning behind how people make decisions about whether to take a vaccine in different geographical and cultural spaces. The exploration of contexts, exposures and circumstances provide insights into perceptions and behaviour. Deeper engagement with local communities is crucial to develop evidence that can inform vaccine interventions. Assumptions about how culture and religion affect vaccine hesitancy or acceptance should be avoided in the process of developing such evidence.

Over the past several years, the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford has been part of a multi- disciplinary team examining the question of how we train medical students to deal with those parts of their profession which are concerned primarily with the humanity of their patients. In collaboration with colleagues from Neuroscience, Psychiatry, History and Theology, the Museum has participated in an ongoing teaching experiment in which medical history, ethics and the visual arts are brought to bear on an understanding of medical professionalism - what it means to be a doctor and how to be a better one. Bringing together museum professionals, Expert Patient Tutors and doctors in curriculum planning and delivery, the work has been delivered online, using images from the museum’s collections, and live, using the Ashmolean galleries as spaces for the consideration of issues around death, dying and end-of-life care. This article and its preface reflect broadly on a decade of medical collaboration at the Ashmolean and specifically on the processes of both making and delivering teaching on dealing with death, in a cross-disciplinary, non-medical context, asking not only what the Museum can do for medical education but why medical education needs the museum.

In 1893 The Lancet published an editorial reflecting on the legacy of its first Editor, Thomas Wakley, who led the journal from its inception in 1823 to his death in 1862. The Lancet was, the article proclaimed, “the ‘incarnation’ of Thomas Wakley”. In the years after Wakley's death, this version of The Lancet's history cemented and stuck. His name remains integral to the journal to this day, as in the annual Wakley Prize. The Lancet's mission to expose medical corruption was inextricably linked with Wakley's own political inclinations, and he is justly lauded for his pioneering role in socially driven medical journalism. But even in its earliest days The Lancet was never a solo effort. Just as the journal's content provides historical insight into health services and systems, so its own structures have a history to be explored.

This open access book looks at the dramatic history of ovariotomy, an operation to remove ovarian tumours first practiced in the early nineteenth century. Bold and daring, surgeons who performed it claimed to be initiating a new era of surgery by opening the abdomen. Ovariotomy soon occupied a complex position within medicine and society, as an operation which symbolised surgical progress, while also remaining at the boundaries of ethical acceptability. This book traces the operation’s innovation, from its roots in eighteenth-century pathology, through the denouncement of those who performed it as ‘belly-rippers’, to its rapid uptake in the 1880s, when ovariotomists were accused of over-operating. Throughout the century, the operation was never a hair’s breadth from controversy.

The origins of contemporary exclusion of surgical methods from patenting lie in the complexities of managing credit claims in operative surgery, recognized in the nineteenth century. While surgical methods were not deemed patentable, surgeons were nevertheless embedded within patent culture. In an atmosphere of heightened awareness about the importance of ‘inventors’, how surgeons should be recognized and rewarded for their inventions was an important question. I examine an episode during the 1840s which seemed to concretize the inapplicability of patents to surgical practice, before looking at alternatives to patenting, used by surgeons to gain social and financial credit for inventions.

The usual story of medicine in the past couple of centuries is one of growing professionalisation, and increasing distance between patients and practitioners. But is a new era of public participation in medicine upon us? Clinicians and patients are moving towards shared decision making in many areas, whilst some medical journals now invite patients to take part in peer review. Citizen Science projects, such as Cell Slider run by Cancer Research UK and Zooniverse, have enabled the public to contribute to medical research. Such developments open up new possibilities.

<a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00033790.2012.663410">http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00033790.2012.663410</a>