ArticleNTM2019
[Health Education and Its (Social) Scientization in the 1950s and 1960s].
Article in NTM, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The contemporary history of prevention is booming. By means of its preventative societal handling of health and illness, it illuminates exemplarily the transformation in concepts, institutions, and practice of the biopolitical governing of populations. In this regard health education is a decisive technology. However, up until now the history of health education, especially with regard to its methodological transformation during this period, as well as the relations between international developments and national adaption, has not been well studied. This gap will be filled to a certain extent by means of quantitative and qualitative analysis of three different anglophone journals. During the 1950s an international professional discourse was established, which constituted a scientific occupational area. This clearly required moving away from the traditional German model of a demonstrative mediation of medical knowledge, mainly through exhibitions, and to focus on the integration of knowledge and methodology from the social sciences. From the perspective of the BehaviouralSciences human action and the possibility of it being influenced were integrated within a network of mutual influencing factors: apparently only survey research on health attitudes and motivation as well as on its own efficacy could enable the health educators to successfully understand and change human behaviour-the prioritized purpose of health education. Through such a determination of purpose, means, and relevant knowledge, which was differently received and institutionalized in the FRG as well as in the GDR, the actors of the discourse assured themselves to be part of an international profession of health educators. However, more research and the implementation of their results did not fulfill their hopes of finding "recipes for steering human" behaviour.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30666339What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.