↓ Skip to main content

Causal narratives in public health: the difference between mechanisms of aetiology and mechanisms of prevention in non‐communicable diseases

Overview of attention for article published in Sociology of Health & Illness, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#17 of 2,124)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
231 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Causal narratives in public health: the difference between mechanisms of aetiology and mechanisms of prevention in non‐communicable diseases
Published in
Sociology of Health & Illness, October 2017
DOI 10.1111/1467-9566.12621
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael P. Kelly, Federica Russo

Abstract

Research in the health sciences has been highly successful in revealing the aetiologies of many morbidities, particularly those involving the microbiology of communicable disease. This success has helped form a narrative to be found in numerous public health documents, about interventions to reduce the burden of non-communicable diseases (e.g., obesity or alcohol related pathologies). These focus on tackling the purported pathogenic factors causing the diseases as a means of prevention. In this paper, we argue that this approach has been sub-optimal. The mechanisms of aetiology and of prevention are sometimes significantly different and failure to make this distinction has hindered efforts at preventing non-communicable diseases linked to diet, exercise and alcohol consumption. We propose a sociological approach as an alternative based on social practice theory. (A virtual abstract for this paper can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_979cmCmR9rLrKuD7z0ycA).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 231 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 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 143 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 15%
Researcher 16 11%
Student > Master 15 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Student > Bachelor 10 7%
Other 34 24%
Unknown 37 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 18%
Social Sciences 22 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 8%
Psychology 7 5%
Philosophy 5 3%
Other 28 20%
Unknown 43 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 148. 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 November 2023.
All research outputs
#281,536
of 25,649,244 outputs
Outputs from Sociology of Health & Illness
#17
of 2,124 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,848
of 334,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sociology of Health & Illness
#2
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,649,244 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,124 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 334,454 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 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.