Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41894345›Full record

ReviewPLOS global public health2026

Redefining social medicine from Latin America: Historical foundations and contemporary directions.

Francisco Ortega, Gabriel Abarca-Brown

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PLOS global public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Francisco OrtegaCatalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies (ICREA), Barcelona, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5039-9449
Gabriel Abarca-BrownCenter for Culture and the Mind (CULTMIND), University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5369-1616

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article examines the contemporary meaning of social medicine, a field marked by its porous boundaries, plurality, and contestation. Rather than offering a fixed definition, we trace its shifting forms across time, geography, and politics, positioning it as a "boundary object" that adapts to diverse contexts while retaining a minimal common identity. Comparative discussion with medical anthropology, social studies of medicine, global health, underscores social medicine's distinct focus on structural determinants, inequities, and justice. We propose three elements that could be the basic common elements of social medicine, drawing on foundational tenets of Latin American Social Medicine for this classification: 1) political commitment to social justice, 2) the central role of social sciences, and 3) participatory methodologies rooted in community participation. We highlight how these elements informed transformative reforms while also noting how institutionalization sometimes diluted revolutionary impulses into bureaucratic logics. Finally, we analyze how these basic common elements of social medicine identified through the Latin American case are manifested in other historical currents within the field and in contemporary expressions of "protest medicine". In these contexts, health professionals and volunteers provide care, document state violence, and transform medical testimony into political action. By situating these practices at the intersection of grassroots militancy and institutional incorporation, the article reflects on the enduring tensions and possibilities of social medicine as a global, evolving project oriented toward health equity and social justice.

Identifiers

PMID41894345
PMCPMC13028372

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.