| Title |
Negotiating “The Social” and Managing Tuberculosis in Georgia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11673-015-9689-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Erin Koch |
| Abstract |
In this paper I utilize anthropological insights to illuminate how health professionals and patients navigate and negotiate what for them is social about tuberculosis in order to improve treatment outcomes and support patients as human beings. I draw on ethnographic research about the implementation of the DOTS (Directly Observed Therapy, Short Course) approach in Georgia's National Tuberculosis Program in the wake of the Soviet healthcare system. Georgia is a particularly unique context for exploring these issues given the country's rich history of medical professionalism and the insistence that the practice of medicine is a moral commitment to society. I argue for critical attention to the ways in which treatment recipients and providers navigate what, for them, is "social" about therapeutic practices and their significance for avoiding biological and social reductionism. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 38 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 18% |
| Researcher | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 10 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 14 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 23 March 2016.
All research outputs
#5,892,761
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#225
of 600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,678
of 393,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#20
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
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 62% 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 76% 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 is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.