Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33371785›Full record

ArticleQualitative health research2021

"You Can't Ignore a Number This Big": Gender, Risk, and Responsibility in Online Advocacy for Women's Brain Health.

Victoria Mohr, Annelies Kleinherenbrink, Piia Varis

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Qualitative health research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Victoria MohrTilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9252-4407
Annelies KleinherenbrinkTilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Piia VarisTilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Tilburg University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Alzheimer's disease affects more women than men and has therefore been highlighted as a women's issue. However, there is much debate regarding the nature of this gap, with some studies pointing to sex/gender differences in longevity to explain the disparity. Against this background of empirical uncertainty, we ask how online women's brain health campaigns position women as specifically at risk of developing the disease. Using a multimodal approach, we examine how these platforms relate womanhood to risk, prevention, and responsibility. Four main themes emerged: risk quantification, risk management, risk dispersion, and the gendering of risk. We confirm previous studies that identified a dual discourse in which Alzheimer's is represented as both a catastrophic threat and as a fate that individuals can and must prevent. We find that both constructions are intensified on women-oriented platforms compared with nonspecific websites. Ethical implications of the individualization and gendering of risk and responsibility are discussed.

Indexed as

BrainWomen's HealthFemaleHumansMaleAlzheimer’sdiscourse analysisgendermultimodalityNorth Americaonline advocacyonline health communicationqualitative researchriskwebsitesWestern Europe

Identifiers

PMID33371785
PMCPMC7883008
OpenAlexW3115418088

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.