The co-existence of different types of medical systems (medical pluralism) is a typical feature of India's healthcare system. For conditions such as influenza-like illness (ILI), where non-specific disease signs/symptoms exist, clinical reasoning in the context of medical pluralism becomes crucial. Recognising this need, we undertook a qualitative study, which explored factors underpinning clinical decisions on diagnosis and management of ILI. The study involved semi-structured interviews including clinical vignettes with 20 healthcare practitioners (working within allopathy, homeopathy and Ayurveda) working in the private healthcare sector in Solapur city, India. An inquiry was conducted into criteria influencing the diagnosis, treatment, referral to specialist care and role of treatment guidelines for ILI. Thematic analysis was used to identify aspects relating to ILI diagnosis, treatment and referral. The diagnosis of influenza was based largely on clinical symptoms suggestive of influenza in the absence of other diagnoses. Referral for laboratory tests was only initiated if illness did not resolve, generally after 2-3 consultations. Antibiotics were often prescribed for persistent illness, with antivirals rarely considered. Some differences between practitioners from different medical systems were observed in relation to treatment and referral in case of persistent illness. A combination of analytical and intuitive clinical reasoning was used by the participants and clinical decisions were based on both social and clinical factors. Clinical decision-making was rarely a linear process and respondents felt that broad guidelines on influenza that allowed doctors to account for the sociocultural context within which they practised medicine would be helpful.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
3
5%
Business, Management and Accounting
2
3%
Nursing and Health Professions
2
3%
Other
9
15%
Unknown
22
37%
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 11 July 2017.
All research outputs
#24,763,244
of 34,372,222 outputs
Outputs from Anthropology & Medicine
#279
of 367 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,067
of 359,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anthropology & Medicine
#8
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,372,222 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 367 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 359,522 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.
