↓ Skip to main content

On TB Vaccines, Patients’ Demands, and Modern Printed Media in Times of Biomedical Uncertainties: Buenos Aires, 1920–1950

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, January 2016
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 (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
On TB Vaccines, Patients’ Demands, and Modern Printed Media in Times of Biomedical Uncertainties: Buenos Aires, 1920–1950
Published in
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11673-015-9692-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Diego Armus

Abstract

Reconstructing some of the experiences of people living with tuberculosis in Argentina in the first half of the twentieth century, as reflected not only in written and oral accounts but also in individual and collective actions, this article explores the ways in which patients came to grips with medical expertise in times of biomedical uncertainty. These negotiations, which inevitably included adaptations as well as confrontations, highlight a much less passive and submissive patient-physician relationship than is often assumed. Though patients were certainly subordinate to medical doctors' knowledge and practices, that subordination, far from absolute, was limited and often overthrown. The article focuses on patients' demands to gain access to a vaccine not approved by the medical establishment. By engaging with media organizations, the sick invoked their "right to health" in order to obtain access to experimental treatments when biomedicine was unable to deliver efficient therapies.

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 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 %
Researcher 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Lecturer 2 7%
Professor 2 7%
Student > Master 2 7%
Other 5 18%
Unknown 11 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 29%
Social Sciences 4 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 11 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 04 May 2016.
All research outputs
#3,669,015
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#159
of 600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,822
of 393,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#12
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 600 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 393,729 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.