↓ Skip to main content

“I don’t have to know why it snows, I just have to shovel it!”: Addiction recovery, genetic frameworks, and biological citizenship

Overview of attention for article published in BioSocieties, July 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 (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
“I don’t have to know why it snows, I just have to shovel it!”: Addiction recovery, genetic frameworks, and biological citizenship
Published in
BioSocieties, July 2017
DOI 10.1057/s41292-017-0045-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Molly J. Dingel, Jenny Ostergren, Kathleen Heaney, Barbara A. Koenig, Jennifer McCormick

Abstract

The gene has infiltrated the way citizens perceive themselves and their health. However, there is scant research that explores the ways genetic conceptions infiltrate individuals' understanding of their own health as it relates to a behavioral trait, like addiction. Do people seeking treatment for addiction ground their self-perception in biology in a way that shapes their experiences? We interviewed 63 participants in addiction treatment programs, asking how they make meaning of a genetic understanding of addiction in the context of their recovery, and in dealing with the stigma of addiction. About two-thirds of people in our sample did not find a genetic conception of addiction personally useful to them in treatment, instead believing that the cause was irrelevant to their daily struggle to remain abstinent. One-third of respondents believed that an individualized confirmation of a genetic predisposition to addiction would facilitate their dealing with feelings of shame and accept treatment. The vast majority of our sample believed that a genetic understanding of addiction would reduce the stigma associated with addiction, which demonstrates the perceived power of genetic explanations in U.S. society. Our results indicate that respondents (unevenly) ground their self-perception of themselves as an addicted individual in biology.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Student > Postgraduate 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Student > Master 3 11%
Researcher 3 11%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 8 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 6 21%
Psychology 5 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 7 25%
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 05 April 2018.
All research outputs
#2,308,377
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from BioSocieties
#114
of 394 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,807
of 312,556 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioSocieties
#12
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 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 394 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 312,556 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.