↓ Skip to main content

An Illness of Power: Gender and the Social Causes of Depression

Overview of attention for article published in Culture, Medicine & Psychiatry, July 2015
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 (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
Title
An Illness of Power: Gender and the Social Causes of Depression
Published in
Culture, Medicine & Psychiatry, July 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11013-015-9466-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alex B. Neitzke

Abstract

There is considerable discourse surrounding the disproportionate diagnosis of women with depression as compared to men, often times cited at a rate around 2:1. While this disparity clearly draws attention to gender, a focus on gender tends to fall away in the study and treatment of depression in neuroscience and psychiatry, which largely understand its workings in mechanistic terms of brain chemistry and neurological processes. I first consider how this brain-centered biological model for depression came about. I then argue that the authoritative scientific models for disorder have serious consequences for those diagnosed. Finally, I argue that mechanistic biological models of depression have the effect of silencing women and marginalizing or preventing the examination of social-structural causes of depression, like gender oppression, and therein contribute to the ideological reproduction of oppressive social relations. I argue that depression is best understood in terms of systems of power, including gender, and where a given individual is situated within such social relations. The result is a model of depression that accounts for the influence of biological, psychological, and social factors.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 58 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 25%
Unspecified 12 20%
Student > Master 11 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 17%
Researcher 4 7%
Other 8 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 35%
Unspecified 12 20%
Social Sciences 11 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Other 8 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 February 2018.
All research outputs
#1,104,098
of 12,550,112 outputs
Outputs from Culture, Medicine & Psychiatry
#94
of 418 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,472
of 263,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Culture, Medicine & Psychiatry
#5
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,550,112 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 418 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 263,396 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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.