↓ Skip to main content

Causal narratives in public health: the difference between mechanisms of aetiology and mechanisms of prevention in non-communicable diseases

Overview of attention for article published in Sociology of Health & Illness, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#2 of 1,415)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
257 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Title
Causal narratives in public health: the difference between mechanisms of aetiology and mechanisms of prevention in non-communicable diseases
Published in
Sociology of Health & Illness, October 2017
DOI 10.1111/1467-9566.12621
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael P. Kelly, Federica Russo

Abstract

Research in the health sciences has been highly successful in revealing the aetiologies of many morbidities, particularly those involving the microbiology of communicable disease. This success has helped form a narrative to be found in numerous public health documents, about interventions to reduce the burden of non-communicable diseases (e.g., obesity or alcohol related pathologies). These focus on tackling the purported pathogenic factors causing the diseases as a means of prevention. In this paper, we argue that this approach has been sub-optimal. The mechanisms of aetiology and of prevention are sometimes significantly different and failure to make this distinction has hindered efforts at preventing non-communicable diseases linked to diet, exercise and alcohol consumption. We propose a sociological approach as an alternative based on social practice theory. (A virtual abstract for this paper can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_979cmCmR9rLrKuD7z0ycA).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 257 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 22%
Researcher 12 17%
Student > Master 7 10%
Unspecified 6 9%
Professor 5 7%
Other 24 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 17 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 22%
Unspecified 13 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 10%
Psychology 4 6%
Other 13 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 162. 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 January 2019.
All research outputs
#91,536
of 13,902,005 outputs
Outputs from Sociology of Health & Illness
#2
of 1,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,849
of 276,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sociology of Health & Illness
#1
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,902,005 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,415 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 276,259 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.