↓ Skip to main content

An exploration of food intolerance in the primary care setting: The general practitioner's experience

Overview of attention for article published in Social Science & Medicine, June 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
An exploration of food intolerance in the primary care setting: The general practitioner's experience
Published in
Social Science & Medicine, June 2008
DOI 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.05.025
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Food intolerance is one of medicine's modern enigmas. Its etiology and mechanism are unclear and the subject of constant debate, while estimates of its prevalence vary widely from 2% to over 20% of the population. Using interpretive phenomenonological analysis, this study explored the phenomenon of food intolerance in primary care from the general practitioner's (GP) perspective. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 17 GPs from around the UK. Food intolerance was primarily conceptualised as a spectrum of clinical importance with medical conditions arranged in three hierarchies; the certainty that the GP would have in making a diagnosis, the authenticity of the patients' experience, and the threat posed to physical health. Since some conditions within the spectrum had a medical name that was used in preference to the term 'food intolerance', food intolerance essentially became a 'dustbin diagnosis', focused at just one end of the spectrum and viewed with scepticism. The scepticism about food intolerance as a specific condition influenced the GPs' perceptions of patients and of the patients' underlying problems. This was, however, tempered by an element of awareness of the limitations of modern medicine. Rather than risk damaging the doctor-patient relationship, the GPs chose, despite their scepticism, to negotiate mutually acceptable ground with patients and with patients' beliefs. As a result, whether due to a placebo effect, secondary benefit, or as a biophysical result of excluding a food from the diet, the GPs acknowledged both personal and therapeutic benefit in working with the patients' belief in food intolerance and with behaviours associated with the beliefs.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Japan 1 2%
Unknown 51 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Researcher 8 15%
Other 3 6%
Lecturer 3 6%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 10 19%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 21%
Social Sciences 9 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 12 23%
Attention Score in Context

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 22 April 2019.
All research outputs
#4,945,941
of 28,832,041 outputs
Outputs from Social Science & Medicine
#4,704
of 12,826 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,423
of 107,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Social Science & Medicine
#23
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,832,041 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,826 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.9. 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 107,723 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 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 54% of its contemporaries.