Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17369672›Full record

ArticleBulletin of the history of medicine2007

Medicine and the public: the 1962 report of the Royal College of Physicians and the new public health.

Virginia Berridge

Abstract readHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Article in Bulletin of the history of medicine, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Harnessing the Power of Difference: Colonialism and British Chronic Disease Research, 1940-1975.Social history of medicine : the journal of the Society for the Social History of Medicine · 2016
    Article
  6. Climate change and health: time to adopt environmental probity?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2011
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Virginia BerridgeLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University of London, UK. virginia.berridge@lshtm.ac.uk
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust 037126
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The 1962 report of the Royal College of Physicians on smoking was a significant event in the history of smoking. Its significance was, however, more than smoking-specific: the RCP committee's appointment, its membership, its work, and the manner of its publication signified the changes within social medicine, and within the medical profession more generally, in postwar Britain. Doctors assumed the right to speak to the public and to government on matters of individual health, and a new risk-based public health was in the process of formation. A public health "policy community" formed, and governments began to assume responsibility for advising the public on health matters. The use of research in the report, and of social research in response to it, was important in the emergence of evidence-based medicine within public health. The paper argues for greater attention to the change in public health epitomized by the report in current debates on the concept of the 1960s "permissive society." It was the harbinger of a new style of "coercive permissiveness" in health.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineHealth EducationHealth PolicyHistory, 20th CenturyHumansLung NeoplasmsMass MediaPoliticsPublic HealthSmokingSocial MarketingSocial MedicineSocieties, MedicalUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID17369672
PMCPMC1894742
OpenAlexW2092602953

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.