↓ Skip to main content

Networks of knowledge or just old wives’ tales?: A diary-based analysis of women’s self-care practices and everyday lay expertise

Overview of attention for article published in Health, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Networks of knowledge or just old wives’ tales?: A diary-based analysis of women’s self-care practices and everyday lay expertise
Published in
Health, August 2013
DOI 10.1177/1363459313497610
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alex Broom, Carla Meurk, Jon Adams, David Sibbritt

Abstract

Complementary and alternative medicine is increasingly popular in Australia and particularly among women. While existing research provides some understanding of women's engagement with complementary and alternative medicine and biomedicine, there has been comparatively little examination of the day-to-day character of their experiences. In this study, we utilise solicited diaries with women aged 60-65 years drawn from the 1946-1951 cohort of the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health to capture the temporal dimension of their therapeutic engagement. Focusing on 30 active complementary and alternative medicine users, we explore women's experiences of managing their health, illness and well-being over a 1-month period. The themes that emerge from their diaries illustrate the day-to-day enactment of lay expertise through informal knowledge networks, practices of self-trialling and experimentation and the moralities underpinning self-care. The diaries provide unprecedented temporal insight into the (often problematic) enactment of lay expertise at the nexus of complementary and alternative medicine and biomedicine. They also point to the value of longitudinal techniques of data collection for augmenting more traditional sociological ways of exploring therapeutic pluralism.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 40 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 26%
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Master 3 7%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 11 26%
Arts and Humanities 7 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 9%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 8 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 09 December 2014.
All research outputs
#2,257,156
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Health
#134
of 2,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,189
of 212,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health
#3
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,316 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 212,171 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.