↓ Skip to main content

Principlism, medical individualism, and health promotion in resource-poor countries: can autonomy-based bioethics promote social justice and population health?

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, January 2010
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 (#8 of 216)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 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
Principlism, medical individualism, and health promotion in resource-poor countries: can autonomy-based bioethics promote social justice and population health?
Published in
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, January 2010
DOI 10.1186/1747-5341-5-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jacquineau Azétsop, Stuart Rennie

Abstract

Through its adoption of the biomedical model of disease which promotes medical individualism and its reliance on the individual-based anthropology, mainstream bioethics has predominantly focused on respect for autonomy in the clinical setting and respect for person in the research site, emphasizing self-determination and freedom of choice. However, the emphasis on the individual has often led to moral vacuum, exaggeration of human agency, and a thin (liberal?) conception of justice. Applied to resource-poor countries and communities within developed countries, autonomy-based bioethics fails to address the root causes of diseases and public health crises with which individuals or communities are confronted. A sociological explanation of disease causation is needed to broaden principles of biomedical ethics and provides a renewed understanding of disease, freedom, medical practice, patient-physician relationship, risk and benefit of research and treatment, research priorities, and health policy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 139 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 21%
Student > Bachelor 22 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 14%
Student > Postgraduate 12 8%
Researcher 11 8%
Other 29 20%
Unknown 18 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 22%
Social Sciences 20 14%
Philosophy 8 6%
Arts and Humanities 7 5%
Other 18 13%
Unknown 20 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 55. 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 01 April 2022.
All research outputs
#644,334
of 22,669,724 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#8
of 216 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,367
of 163,531 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,669,724 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 216 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 163,531 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 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.