| Title |
A time for new north–south relationships in global health
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of General Medicine, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijgm.s146475 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jin Un Kim, Obinna Oleribe, Ramou Njie, Simon D Taylor-Robinson |
| Abstract |
The modern concept of globalization in health care and clinical research often carries a positive message for the "Global South" nations of Africa, South America and Southeast Asia. However, bioethical abuse of participants in clinical trials still exists in the Global South. Unethical studies directed by the "Global North", formed by the medically advanced nations in North America, Western Europe and Japan, have been hugely concerning. The issue between the Global North and South is a well-recognized socioeconomic phenomenon of globalization. Medical exploitation has its roots in the socioeconomic interactions of a postcolonial world, and solutions to reducing exploitation require a deeper understanding of these societal models of globalization. We explore the fundamental causes of imbalance and suggest solutions. Reflecting on the globalization model, there must be an effort to empower the Global South nations to direct and govern their own health care systems efficiently on the basis of equality. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 75 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 12% |
| Researcher | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 30 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Unknown | 36 | 48% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 26 February 2021.
All research outputs
#1,501,963
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of General Medicine
#71
of 1,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,998
of 329,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of General Medicine
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,464 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 329,170 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.