↓ Skip to main content

Small Wins Matter in Advocacy Movements: Giving Voice to Patients

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Community Psychology, August 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
Title
Small Wins Matter in Advocacy Movements: Giving Voice to Patients
Published in
American Journal of Community Psychology, August 2011
DOI 10.1007/s10464-011-9457-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leonard A Jason

Abstract

In this article, the various players are delineated in a story of a contested illness and patient advocacy, played out within the corridors of federal power. It is suggested that the mistreatment and negative attitudes that health care providers and others have towards those with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is possibly due to the social construction of this illness as being a "Yuppie flu" disease. Institutional factors are identified that created these norms and attributions, as well as the multiple stakeholders and constituent groups invested in exerting pressure on policy makers to effect systemic change. This article also provides examples of how the field of Community Psychology, which is fundamentally committed to/based on listening to and giving voice to patients, is broadly relevant to patient activism communities. This approach focused, over time, on epidemiological studies, the name, the case definition, and ultimately the change in CFS leadership at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Keys to this "small wins" approach were coalition building, use of "oppositional experts" (professionals in the scientific community who support patient advocacy goals) to challenge federal research, and taking advantage of developing events/shifts in power. Ultimately, this approach can result in significant scientific and policy gains, and changes in medical and public perception of an illness.

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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 79 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 20%
Student > Bachelor 14 18%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 13%
Student > Master 9 11%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 10 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 32 40%
Social Sciences 12 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Engineering 3 4%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 11 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 30 December 2022.
All research outputs
#5,499,713
of 25,815,269 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Community Psychology
#285
of 1,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,336
of 135,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Community Psychology
#3
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,815,269 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,158 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. 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 135,242 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 78% 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.