↓ Skip to main content

The challenges of choosing and explaining a phenomenon in epidemiological research on the “Hispanic Paradox”

Overview of attention for article published in Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
The challenges of choosing and explaining a phenomenon in epidemiological research on the “Hispanic Paradox”
Published in
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11017-015-9349-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sean A. Valles

Abstract

According to public health data, the US Hispanic population is far healthier than would be expected for a population with low socioeconomic status. Ever since Kyriakos Markides and Jeannine Coreil highlighted this in a seminal 1986 article, public health researchers have sought to explain the so-called "Hispanic paradox." Several candidate explanations have been offered over the years, but the debate goes on. This article offers a philosophical analysis that clarifies how two sets of obstacles make it particularly difficult to explain the Hispanic paradox. First, different research projects define the Hispanic paradox phenomenon in substantially different ways. Moreover, using Bas van Fraassen's pragmatic theory of explanation and Sean Valles's extension of it with the concept of "phenomenon choice," it also becomes clear that there are also multiple ways of explaining each individual definition of the phenomenon. A second set of philosophical and methodological challenges arises during any attempt to study "Hispanic" phenomena, with one key challenge being that the "Hispanic" panethnic concept was intentionally made vague as it was developed and popularized during the 1960s-1970s. After comparing this case with similar cases in the philosophical literature, the article concludes with observations on what makes this problem unique, particularly its ethical features.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 28 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 24%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 17%
Student > Master 5 17%
Librarian 2 7%
Other 1 3%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 5 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 11 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 17%
Arts and Humanities 2 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 8 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 09 May 2016.
All research outputs
#20,325,615
of 22,869,263 outputs
Outputs from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#267
of 292 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#331,740
of 395,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,869,263 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 292 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 395,021 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.