| Title |
Beyond Biomedicine: Relationships and Care in Tuberculosis Prevention
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11673-015-9697-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paul H. Mason, Chris Degeling |
| Abstract |
With attention to the experiences, agency, and rights of tuberculosis (TB) patients, this symposium on TB and ethics brings together a range of different voices from the social sciences and humanities. To develop fresh insights and new approaches to TB care and prevention, it is important to incorporate diverse perspectives from outside the strictly biomedical model. In the articles presented in this issue of the Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, clinical experience is married with historical and cultural context, ethical concerns are brought to bear on global health, and structural analyses shed light upon the lived experience of people living with TB. The relational and reciprocal dimensions of care feature strongly in these discussions, which serve as a poignant reminder that behind each of the yearly deaths from TB is a deeply personal story. No single discipline holds a monopoly on how to care for each of these people, but strong cases are made for support from mental health and social workers in addressing the kaleidoscope of needs in TB prevention. As the World Health Organization moves towards the goal of eliminating TB globally by 2050, attending to the needs of TB patients serves global interests to lower disease burden and to develop better integrated communities worldwide. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 23% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 10% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 13% |
| Psychology | 4 | 10% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 26 October 2016.
All research outputs
#4,029,444
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#177
of 600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,299
of 397,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#13
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd 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 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 397,150 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 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 50% of its contemporaries.