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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Language in tuberculosis services: can we change to patient-centred terminology and stop the paradigm of blaming the patients? [Perspectives]
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, June 2012
|
| DOI | 10.5588/ijtld.11.0635 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
R. Zachariah, A. D. Harries, S. Srinath, S. Ram, K. Viney, E. Singogo, P. Lal, A. Mendoza-Ticona, A. Sreenivas, N. W. Aung, B. N. Sharath, H. Kanyerere, N. van Soelen, N. Kirui, E. Ali, S. G. Hinderaker, K. Bissell, D. A. Enarson, M. E. Edginton |
| Abstract |
The words 'defaulter', 'suspect' and 'control' have been part of the language of tuberculosis (TB) services for many decades, and they continue to be used in international guidelines and in published literature. From a patient perspective, it is our opinion that these terms are at best inappropriate, coercive and disempowering, and at worst they could be perceived as judgmental and criminalising, tending to place the blame of the disease or responsibility for adverse treatment outcomes on one side-that of the patients. In this article, which brings together a wide range of authors and institutions from Africa, Asia, Latin America, Europe and the Pacific, we discuss the use of the words 'defaulter', 'suspect' and 'control' and argue why it is detrimental to continue using them in the context of TB. We propose that 'defaulter' be replaced with 'person lost to follow-up'; that 'TB suspect' be replaced by 'person with presumptive TB' or 'person to be evaluated for TB'; and that the term 'control' be replaced with 'prevention and care' or simply deleted. These terms are non-judgmental and patient-centred. We appeal to the global Stop TB Partnership to lead discussions on this issue and to make concrete steps towards changing the current paradigm. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 18% |
| Switzerland | 3 | 14% |
| Peru | 1 | 5% |
| Mexico | 1 | 5% |
| India | 1 | 5% |
| Kenya | 1 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 5% |
| Paraguay | 1 | 5% |
| South Africa | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 6 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 18 | 82% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
| Scientists | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 4 | 2% |
| Norway | 2 | 1% |
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Cambodia | 1 | <1% |
| Peru | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 156 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 45 | 27% |
| Student > Master | 23 | 14% |
| Other | 16 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 12 | 7% |
| Other | 36 | 21% |
| Unknown | 22 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 67 | 40% |
| Social Sciences | 25 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 26 | 15% |
| Unknown | 26 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 08 July 2022.
All research outputs
#1,137,602
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from The International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease
#44
of 2,524 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,076
of 179,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease
#1
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,524 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 179,216 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 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 97% of its contemporaries.