Medicalización del TDAH en Argentina. Reflexiones sobre tendencias globales y especificidades locales a través del estudio del metilfenidato y la atomoxetina

IF 4.1 2区社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Politics & Society Pub Date : 2021-01-29 DOI:10.5007/2175-7984.2020.E74324

E. Bianchi, S. Faraone, Flavia Torricelli

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The general objective is to contribute to a panoramic view of the phenomenon of the medicalizationof ADHD in Argentina, and to discussions about the dissemination of knowledge about childhood. The analysis is part of studies on the transformation and expansion of medicalization in the XXI century, and the processes of diagnosis and treatment of ADHD are addressed. The article presents data from 1) world production and consumption of methylphenidate, and data fromArgentina from 2) import of methylphenidate as monodrug (2003-2016); 3) dispensed containersof atomoxetine and methylphenidate (2005-2010 and 2012-2016). These data are triangulated with qualitative sources: 84 semi-structured interviews, individual and group, between 2007 and 2017, to health professionals with clinical, teaching and research activities in the City of BuenosAires, Tierra del Fuego, Corrientes and Salta. Consonant and dissonant Argentine trends with these processes are described and analyzed worldwide.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

阿根廷多动症的医疗化。通过对哌甲酯和阿托莫西汀的研究反思全球趋势和地方特色

总体目标是促进对阿根廷ADHD医学化现象的全景看法，并讨论有关儿童知识的传播。该分析是21世纪医学化的转型和扩展研究的一部分，并讨论了ADHD的诊断和治疗过程。本文提供了以下数据:1)全球哌醋甲酯的生产和消费，以及阿根廷的数据:2)作为单一药物的哌醋甲酯进口(2003-2016);3)托莫西汀和哌醋甲酯的配药容器(2005-2010年和2012-2016年)。这些数据通过定性来源进行三角测量:2007年至2017年期间，对布宜诺斯艾利斯市、火地岛、科连特斯和萨尔塔市从事临床、教学和研究活动的卫生专业人员进行了84次个人和团体半结构化访谈。阿根廷与这些进程的一致和不一致的趋势在世界范围内进行了描述和分析。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Politics & Society Multiple-

CiteScore

5.00

自引率

4.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： Politics & Society is a peer-reviewed journal. All submitted papers are read by a rotating editorial board member. If a paper is deemed potentially publishable, it is sent to another board member, who, if agreeing that it is potentially publishable, sends it to a third board member. If and only if all three agree, the paper is sent to the entire editorial board for consideration at board meetings. The editorial board meets three times a year, and the board members who are present (usually between 9 and 14) make decisions through a deliberative process that also considers written reports from absent members. Unlike many journals which rely on 1–3 individual blind referee reports and a single editor with final say, the peers who decide whether to accept submitted work are thus the full editorial board of the journal, comprised of scholars from various disciplines, who discuss papers openly, with author names known, at meetings. Editors are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest when evaluating manuscripts and to recuse themselves from voting if such a potential exists.

期刊最新文献

Bringing Household Finance Back In: House Prices and the Missing Macroeconomics of Comparative Political Economy Who Pays for Environmental Policy? Business Power and the Design of State-Level Climate Policies* Supervising Local Cadres in China: The Quest for Authoritarian Accountability Rethinking Antitrust for the Cloud Era Antitrust and Equal Liberty