↓ Skip to main content

Bodies of knowledge: Nature, holism and women’s plural health practices

Overview of attention for article published in Health, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Bodies of knowledge: Nature, holism and women’s plural health practices
Published in
Health, September 2012
DOI 10.1177/1363459312447258
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carla Meurk, Alex Broom, Jon Adams, David Sibbritt

Abstract

The proliferation of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), and women's high level of engagement with these practices, has presented sociology with a range of questions regarding gender, embodiment and identity work in the context of contemporary medical pluralism. The current study, drawing on 60 qualitative interviews with women from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health (ALSWH), examines how a group of Australian women negotiate CAM and biomedicine in a range of health and illness contexts. Selected from the mid-aged cohort of this national study, here we explore their accounts of engagement with CAM and biomedicine, unpacking their logics underpinning, and rhetorical practices surrounding, their therapeutic engagement. The results provide significant insight into: the importance of ideas about nature, holism and strengthening; perceptions of the harshness and softness of medicines for women's bodies; and, the relative importance of scientific proof vis-a-vis individual subjectivities. Ultimately, their accounts illustrate gendered and embodied strategies of strategic integration, and importantly, border crossing. We conclude that while women's engagement with CAM and biomedicine may be indeed be gendered in character, we suggest a rethinking of gender-based resistance (to biomedicine) or gender-alignment (to CAM) arguments; the notion of women as designers would more adequately capture the landscapes of contemporary medical pluralism.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 37 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 24%
Student > Bachelor 6 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 13%
Student > Master 4 11%
Lecturer 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 8 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 10 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 13%
Psychology 4 11%
Arts and Humanities 3 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 8 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 28 September 2013.
All research outputs
#20,660,571
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Health
#922
of 2,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,433
of 186,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health
#10
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,316 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 186,949 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.