| Title |
Fundamental Interventions: How Clinicians Can Address the Fundamental Causes of Disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11673-016-9715-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Adam D. Reich, Helena B. Hansen, Bruce G. Link |
| Abstract |
In order to enhance the "structural competency" of medicine-the capability of clinicians to address social and institutional determinants of their patients' health-physicians need a theoretical lens to see how social conditions influence health and how they might address them. We consider one such theoretical lens, fundamental cause theory, and propose how it might contribute to a more structurally competent medical profession. We first describe fundamental cause theory and how it makes the social causes of disease and health visible. We then outline the sorts of "fundamental interventions" that physicians might make in order to address the fundamental causes. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 56 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 16% |
| Researcher | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 13% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Unknown | 7 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 19 | 34% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 11% |
| Psychology | 4 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 10 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 25 August 2020.
All research outputs
#2,826,870
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#127
of 599 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,630
of 300,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#2
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 599 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 done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 300,926 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 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.