↓ Skip to main content

Promise and Deceit: Pharmakos, Drug Replacement Therapy, and the Perils of Experience

Overview of attention for article published in Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, May 2014
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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
Title
Promise and Deceit: Pharmakos, Drug Replacement Therapy, and the Perils of Experience
Published in
Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, May 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11013-014-9376-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Todd Meyers

Abstract

The problem of lying as a feature of medication compliance has been well documented in anthropological and clinical literatures. Yet the role of the lie-its destabilizing effects on the continuity of drug treatment and therapy, as a technology of drug misuse, or as a way to understand the neuro-chemical processes of treatment (pharmacotherapy "tricking" or lying to the brain)-has been less considered, particularly in the context of opioid replacement therapy. The following paper is set against the backdrop of a three-year study of adolescents receiving a relatively new drug (buprenorphine) for the treatment of opiate dependency inside and outside of highly monitored treatment environments in the United States. Lies give order not only to the experience of addiction but also to the experience of therapy as well. In order to better understand this ordering of experience, the paper puts the widely discussed conceptual duality of the pharmakon (healing and poison) in conversation with a perilously overlooked subject in the critical study of pharmacotherapy, namely the pharmakos or the personification of sacrifice. The paper demonstrates how the patient-subject comes to represent therapeutic promise by allowing for the possibility of (and often performing) deceit.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 19%
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 5 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 30%
Social Sciences 11 26%
Psychology 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 5 12%
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 27 July 2019.
All research outputs
#2,088,443
of 23,906,448 outputs
Outputs from Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry
#92
of 622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,478
of 231,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry
#3
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,906,448 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 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 85% 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 231,119 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 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.