Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25533870›Full record

ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2015

Taking pills for developmental ails in Southern Brazil: The biologization of adolescence?

Dominique P Béhague

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Multimorbidity, Polyiatrogenesis, and COVID-19.Medical anthropology quarterly · 2020
    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.

Dominique P BéhagueVanderbilt University, USA; King's College London, UK; London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK. Electronic address: Dominique.Behague@vanderbilt.edu.

Funding

Wellcome Trust GR077175MA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the late 1990s researchers in Pelotas Southern Brazil began documenting what they considered to be unacceptably high rates of licensed psychotropic use among individuals of all ages, including youth. This came as a surprise, since the vast majority of psychiatrists in Pelotas draw on psychoanalytic theory and approach pharmaceutical use, especially for children and adolescents, in a consciously tempered way. Drawing from a longitudinal ethnographic sub-study, part of a larger 1982 birth cohort study, this paper follows the circuitous trajectories of emergent pharma-patterns among "shantytown" youth over a ten-year period, exploring the thickly layered and often moralized contingencies in which psychodynamic psychiatrists' intention to resist excessive pharmaceuticalization both succeed and crumble. I juxtapose these trajectories with the growing salience of an "anti-biologizing" explanatory framework that psychiatrists and researchers are using to pre-empt the kind of diagnostics-driven "biopsychiatrization" so prevalent in North America. My analysis suggests that psychiatrists' use of this framework ironically contributes to their failed attempts to "resist" pharmaceuticalization.

Indexed as

Practice Patterns, Physicians'Psychology, AdolescentAdolescentAnthropology, CulturalBiologyBrazilHumansInappropriate PrescribingLongitudinal StudiesMedicalizationPovertyProspective StudiesPsychiatryPsychotropic DrugsYoung AdultPsychotropic DrugsBrazilChild psychiatryEpistemologyMedicalizationPharmaceuticalsPrototypePsychoanalysis

Identifiers

PMID25533870
PMCPMC4610947

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.