ArticleMedical humanities2024
The 'Glasgow effect': the controversial cultural life of a public health term.
Article in Medical humanities, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
The question of why more people in Glasgow were dying, and younger, compared with English cities with almost identical levels of deprivation, was a hot topic in Scottish public health debates in the early 21st century. Public health researchers, particularly the Glasgow Centre of Population Health (GCPH), used the terms 'Glasgow effect' and 'Scottish effect' as placeholders while identifying the unknown factors behind Scotland's excess mortality. Yet the terms took on a colourful life of their own in the press and larger culture and continue to circulate, despite GCPH's attempts to retire them. This paper is the first to analyse the cultural life of the 'Glasgow effect' and 'Scottish effect' terms. Looking primarily at the Scottish press 1998-2022, I analyse the politically charged and often controversial debates and lay recommendations around the concepts. I also trace the terms' parallel usage, and indeed origin, in contexts unrelated to health. I argue that the 'Glasgow effect' functions as a myth. This myth emphasises Scottish exceptionalism in public health and larger culture, at a time when devolution and the prospect of independence heightened optimism and anxiety about Scotland's future. It overlaps with a larger and longstanding myth of Scottish cultural pathology, or the pathological Scot. The flexibility of the 'Glasgow effect' and 'Scottish effect' terms is exploited by journalists, academics and artists to serve competing agendas, establish their own expertise and influence public opinion. While it may now be challenging to eradicate these terms, especially in lay contexts, researchers and policy makers should avoid using these unstable terms uncritically. The example of the 'Glasgow effect' shows how health concepts can become wrapped in larger national or political narratives and highlights the difficulties for public health communicators in introducing complex and emerging public health ideas into a dynamic landscape of lay beliefs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.