↓ Skip to main content

Seeing a Brain Through an Other: The Informant’s Share in the Diagnosis of Dementia

Overview of attention for article published in Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, May 2017
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 (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
Seeing a Brain Through an Other: The Informant’s Share in the Diagnosis of Dementia
Published in
Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, May 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11013-017-9540-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laurence Anne Tessier

Abstract

This article takes up the neuroscientific assumption of our brains as "solitary" and contrasts this understanding with the description of actual clinical practices. Drawing on observations of clinical consultations and team meetings in a world famous US center for the diagnosis of dementia, I examine how the "informant", a member of the patient's family, participates in the diagnosis process. Based on specific situations in which the informant is judged to be a "bad" one, I inquire as to how clinicians use what they understand of the affective relationships between the patient and the bad informant in order to make a diagnosis. The diagnosis of dementia in an individual is shown to draw on relational dimensions in the patient's life, made visible and enunciable only when problematic. This inquiry therefore brings out how these neurologists, even though they are engaged in a neuroscientific paradigm that conceives the brain as a self-sufficient cognitive machinery, nevertheless do consider what links us to the brains sharing our lives, in order to make sense of our networks of neurons.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 23%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 12 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 6 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Psychology 2 6%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 13 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 02 January 2018.
All research outputs
#2,576,458
of 23,906,448 outputs
Outputs from Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry
#150
of 622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,418
of 316,667 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,906,448 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 622 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 316,667 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them