Existing literature describes tutorial quotation networks and the construction of data fields: their numerous patterns, clustering, fragmentation, structural cohesiveness, and the hyperlink between micro and macro stage processes in rising domains of scientific data manufacturing (Small & Griffith, 1974; Hill & Carley, 1999; Gondal, 2011; Daipha, 2001). However, little has been written to explain the precise structural modifications over time of quotation networks. How do sure nodes emerge and turn out to be central or structurally vital over time? How and why do different nodes, vital early within the quotation community’s evolution, turn out to be far much less vital because the community matures? What are the macro and micro stage processes that describe and govern this habits and what social, epistemological, and political classes can we draw from these modifications?
These questions are vital for rising our theoretical understanding of evolving scientific domains of data. Practically, these questions are additionally vital to discover the biopolitical dimensions of evolving hegemonic scientific domains and the constraints they place on practitioners making use of domains of scientific data. A central notion within the sociology of well being and drugs is the social building of sickness. Sickness, illness, and well being issues are concurrently materially situated organic phenomena and a socially created that means making processes by means of which normalcy and deviance get outlined and play out in socially related shows of energy and inequality. Some sicknesses are significantly embedded with cultural that means, others are socially constructed on the particular person stage–based mostly on how people come to know and reside with their sickness. Others are particularly formed by technical medical and scientific data and will not be essentially given by nature however are primarily constructed and developed by claims-makers and events (Conrad & Barker, 2010).
Additionally, the method of medicalization—the tendency to inscribe increasingly more social issues to be throughout the skilled area of medication—continues to be a dominant pattern in society. By increasing the medical area to ever extra points and social issues, the challenges and conflicts related to naming and framing sickness involves the fore. Rather than a given biomedical truth, we now have a set of understandings, relationships, and actions which might be formed by numerous sorts of data, expertise, and energy relations, and which might be continuously in flux. This social constructionist perspective seems to be at how the phenomenon was recognized and acted upon. Diagnosis is a matter of the “politics of definitions” (Brown, 1995).
Though medical sociology has given nice consideration to the complexities and power-processes related to naming, diagnosing, and constructing techniques to take care of illnesses on the inhabitants stage, much less consideration has been paid to the ways in which the construction of educational literature, and the quotation networks that signify them, contributes to the processes of naming, framing and governing of sickness. This paper seems to be on the structural evolution of the educational literature that offers with the intersection of noncommunicable illnesses and “international well being.” Historically and at present, each the phrases “international well being” and “noncommunicable illnesses” (hereafter, NCDs) have been hotly contested (Airhihenbuwa et al., 2014; Whyte, 2012; Fassin, 2012; Beaglehole & Bonita, 2010). Both the broad and diffuse idea of “international well being” and seemingly technical and clinically delimited discipline of noncommunicable illnesses reveal the methods by which medical and scientific data is socially constructed in advanced methods (Keane, 1998; Brown, 1995; Lantz & Booth, 1998). The framing of NCDs within the international coverage literature, specifically, has been a battle floor of biopolitics (Bukhman et al., 2015; Binagwaho et al., 2014; Katz, 2013; Mamudu et al., 2011).
Building off the present literature, I visually study the altering construction of the worldwide well being / NCD tutorial literature quotation community in addition to quantitatively discover the modifications in a few of the macro-level traits of the quotation community and their modifications between 1995 and 2016. Additionally, utilizing ERGM methods, I additionally discover proof in assist of vital modifications within the density and the emergence of a small variety of structurally vital paper / nodes within the community.
To conclude this paper, I’ll discover how structural modifications on this quotation community correspond with the content material of the papers that dramatically change their structural place throughout the community. By linking this to a historic understanding of the altering framing of NCDs within the international coverage making area, I hope to make the argument that structural modifications within the NCD/international well being quotation community formed the framing for and contributed to limiting the political alternatives out there to activists looking for to mobilize new assets for the rising NCD burden amongst low revenue populations globally.
2) Research Question
More concretely, I hope to reply the next questions: 1) How do the worldwide traits of the NCD/ international well being quotation community change, qualitatively and quantitatively, between 1995 and 2016? 2) What have been an important micro-level buildings that brought on macro-level modifications within the community over that point interval? What historic, social, and political results might these structural modifications within the community each signify and maybe be inflicting within the broader discipline of worldwide well being governance?
3) Data and Methods
Research targeted upon the construction of data manufacturing steadily depends on community information (Gondal, 2011). As Gondal describes,
“The nodes within the community could also be researchers, paperwork, ideas, or organizations. The edges connecting these nodes correspondingly are collaborative authorship (Babchuk et al., 1999; Moody, 2004; Goyal et al., 2006), social and mental contacts between scientists (Lievrouw et al., 1987), co-occurrence of references within the bibliographies of different paperwork or co-citation (Small and Griffith, 1974; Moody and Light, 2006), shared citations of the identical different paperwork or authors also called bibliographic coupling (Kessler, 1963), sharedmem- bership in organizations (Cappell and Guterbock, 1992; Daipha, 2001), or conceptual similarity between paperwork (Small, 1978; Lievrouw et al., 1987; Hill and Carley, 1999). The evaluation of such networks constructed from quotation indices, organizational memberships, and authorships is basically performed at two ranges. At the dyadic stage, researchers have been involved with the that means attributed to the sides interlinking the nodes. At the ‘international’ or ‘macro’ stage, researchers analyze the topological properties of the community as a complete offering a hen’s-eye description of the analysis discipline. There is one more stage – the ‘native’ or ‘micro’ stage – involving a couple of tie however considerably lower than the entire community which stays comparatively under-analyzed within the literature.”
In this paper I try to point out not solely the birds eye view of how this quotation community grows and evolves over time, but in addition how the micro-level buildings that trigger ties change evolve over time as nicely. I achieved this by constructing a plain .txt quotation information set from Web of Science (webofknowledge.com) querying the database and downloading all related quotation and paper information for the papers assembly the search standards. My standards for this search have been a) any of the illnesses listed by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation as a “noncommunicable illness” (every with logical ‘or’), AND b) the time period “international well being”, c) between the dates of 1995 and 2016. I then used the CRAN “bibliometrics” package deal, downloaded to RStudio to rework this plain textual content information file into an adjacency matrix (see Appendix 1 for R code). From there, I used to be in a position to generate the annual graphs of the rising NCD / international well being quotation networks and their corresponding betweenness, closeness, and diploma statistics. I moreover used the VOSViewer software program for mac to additional discover the construction and patterning qualitatively for the community. Finally, utilizing the CRAN ERGM package deal in R, I ran ERGM fashions, testing for the log chance of the presence or absence of varied vital micro-level buildings that will or is probably not current within the given networks and should or could not change over time. Overall, this information set give me a helpful view into each the micro and macro stage buildings and patterns throughout the international well being / NCD quotation community, however it additionally provides me good decision as to how these community properties have modified over time.
4) Results
4.1 Global Properties of the Network
Figure 1 visually exhibits the evolving NCD / international well being quotation community over time, between 1995 and 2016. We see the community going from a mere handful of papers in 1995 to a seemingly very densely packed mess of papers, citations, and nodes in 2016. Nodes are barely expanded based mostly on their diploma quantity (variety of papers citing that paper) and so we see, beginning in about 2001, the emergence of some “key nodes”—or papers that appear to be rising shortly within the variety of citations that they’re receiving from different papers within the community. Starting at about 2006, we see a big density sample in the direction of the underside of the community graph.These patterns are extra simply visualized within the VOSViewer software program. Using this visualization software program, it’s simple to see the breakdown of papers, the authors, their matters, and the conceptual/subject space/disciplinary clustering. Figure 3 exhibits the outcomes of the visualization of the NCD / international well being quotation community in 2016 by way of the VOSViewer. Here we see that it has grouped the vital nodes within the community into disciplines / areas of analysis based mostly on the variety of shared citations. The blue area represents papers involved with international psychological well being points. The inexperienced area represents pulmonary illness, coronary heart illness, and epidemiological research targeted on life-style threat components and inhabitants stage public well being intervention. The pink area has to do with power ache points, arthritis, and different rheumatic illnesses. Finally, the yellow area represents papers that should do with varied types of most cancers. It is attention-grabbing to notice that papers of comparable subject and medical space are likely to group collectively.
Another attention-grabbing discovering from this evaluation was the see the fast progress in significance of huge scale epidemiological modeling and burden of illness measurement papers on the expense of extra medical/intervention targeted papers. Specifically, the papers by Murray, Jemal, and Lozano are all massive scale quantitative epidemiology papers aimed toward measuring completely different parts of the noncommunicable illness burden throughout the globe. This corresponds to a few of the different the vital findings by way of altering structural significance throughout the community, which we I’ll focus on shortly.
4.2 The Changing Network Over Time
In addition to visually seeing the evolution of this quotation community over time, I additionally needed to discover some key community statistics—significantly completely different measures of centrality—of the papers within the community, and the way these modified over the evolution and maturation of the quotation community. Figures 3, 4, and 5 present all the networks papers’ betweenness centrality, closeness centrality, and diploma between 1995 and 2016. Betweenness centrality refers back to the variety of actors that should “move by means of” a given node in an effort to attain different nodes. More technically, “if the geodesic between actors n2 and n3 is n2n1n4n3 — that’s, the shortest path between these actors has to go “by means of” two different actors, n1 and n4 — then lets say that the 2 actors contained within the geodesic may need management over the interplay between n2 and n3” (Wasserman & Faust, 1994, p. 188). This “actor within the center” has some extent of management over the graph, therefore it is a vital statistic to quantify. Closeness centrality focuses on how shut an actor is to all the opposite actors within the set of actors. The concept is that an actor is central if it could possibly shortly work together with all others (Wasserman & Faust, 1994, p. 183). Lastly, diploma merely refers back to the variety of edges linked to a given node. In this case diploma is the same as the variety of papers citing a given paper within the community.
Viewing Figures 3, 4, and 5 collectively reveals an attention-grabbing and placing sample. First, in Figure 3 we see betweenness centrality unfailingly, but unequally rising for all papers within the community. Figure 4 exhibits conversely that paper’s closeness centrality unfailingly decreases over the time interval noticed, however once more at barely completely different charges. Finally, Figure 4 exhibits that diploma seems to go up for all papers within the community, once more at dramatically completely different charges throughout this quotation community.
These observations reveal an attention-grabbing conclusion for this community: that betweenness and closeness look like inversely associated to at least one one other over time as a quotation community grows over time. Practically, what this implies is that as papers proceed to be added to the scientific community area of worldwide well being / NCD analysis, they’re more and more citing seminal papers and making connections with different, much less cited papers within the community. This quickly rising, however comparatively sparsely linked community creates increasingly more betweenness for every paper—there are extra steps by means of the networks by means of which to go and therefor every paper in these steps are between ever extra papers. But, on the similar time, papers are being added to the community at such a fast charge (and papers can solely cite so many different papers) that community is turning into more and more much less dense and therefor the closeness of the papers throughout the community shrinks dramatically, particularly beginning round 2000. Finally, it additionally is sensible that generally, the diploma for papers within the community would develop persistently over the course of the evolution of this quotation community. Papers, even these hardly ever cited, will solely develop of their variety of citations and gained’t lower.
Table 1 (to be mentioned extra beneath) exhibits the variety of papers within the community for every year: there’s an virtually exponential addition of recent papers to the community beginning round 2002. Given this explosion of recent nodes being regularly added to the community, the comparatively few citations anyone paper can have, it is sensible that closeness centrality would plummet over the course of the evolution of this community and that betweenness throughout the community would enhance because the sparsely—but nonetheless utterly linked—community continues to develop.
4.3 Differential Eigen Centrality Trends
So, over time, the NCD / international well being quotation community appears to each be rising by way of its general measurement, the variety of citations, and therefor its common betweenness of the papers within the community. Conversely, the community is turning into much more sparsely linked due to the sheer charge of addition of recent papers and the restricted numbers of citations that every paper could make (see Figure 10). What concerning the significance of explicit papers? Are there particular papers (or teams) that appear to be turning into kind of vital within the community regardless of the fast enlargement of the community itself?
Eigenvector centrality is one such measure of significance or affect inside a quotation community. It assigns relative scores to all nodes within the community based mostly on the quantity connections and high quality of the scores of the connections a node has. The extra vital the node’s connections, the upper that node’s eigenvector centrality shall be (Newman, 2014). We may hypothesize that just like the betweenness measure, all papers would are likely to turn out to be extra vital throughout the community over time. Or, conversely, maybe, eigenvector centrality would are likely to lower quickly with the fast enhance of the scale of this quotation community. Puzzlingly, neither appears to be the case: Figure 5 appears to point out that a few of the papers on this quotation community are rising of their eigenvector centrality rating between 1995 and 2016, whereas different papers within the community lower by way of eigenvector centrality over this time interval. How can we account for this?
It appears that there’s some sample—some papers enhance in eigenvector centrality whereas different papers lower in eigenvector centrality—over the time interval noticed. But, what’s the relationship between the papers that have a tendency to extend or lower in relative significance / affect on this community over time? To discover this, utilizing R (see code in Appendix 1) we separated out the papers that had rising eigenvector centralities and people with reducing eigenvector centralities. Figures 6 and seven present the plots of the rising eigenvector centrality papers in pink and the reducing eigenvector centrality papers in blue. What unites these papers?
To achieve a greater understanding of the general community pattern of eigenvector centrality for the papers in query, I made a decision to create a boxplot of all the paper eigenvector centralities for every year, which is represented in Fiugure 8. Figure 8, as soon as once more, exhibits a placing end result: whereas there definitely are some papers that turn out to be much more vital, structurally, over time throughout the community, the overwhelming majority of the papers are nearly inconsequential so far as eigenvector centrality goes. For occasion, in 1995, the typical eigenvector centrality rating was near .9 with a modest normal error; by 2001, it was lower than .2. As time progresses from 2001 by means of 2016, the typical eigenvector centrality rating crashes to almost zero, whereas a handful of outliers develop of their structural significance throughout the community. Who wrote these papers and what have been they about? Why and the way have they turn out to be so structurally vital inside this community?
4.4 ERGM and the Analysis of Micro-Level Structure
One speculation could also be that native, or micro-level buildings might have an vital function to play within the structural evolution of this quotation community over time, thus inflicting sure papers/nodes throughout the community to have a structural benefit over the others as the sector of data manufacturing expands. Here I tried a modest ERGM evaluation (exponential random graph modeling). ERGM are a category of stochastic fashions which use community native buildings to mannequin the formation of community ties for a community with a hard and fast variety of nodes (Wang et al., 2009). They are a helpful methodology that makes use of Markov Chain Maximum Likelihood Estimation to approximate estimates for the percentages ratio of the presence of various micro-level buildings inside a community.
Table 1 exhibits the outcomes of those modeling workout routines on these NCD / international well being quotation networks as they evolve between 1995 and 2016. While operating these fashions (which, it seems, takes a ton of time and computing energy) I realized that lots of the community parameters that I had hoped to check inside this community (resembling k-star, 4 cycles, triangles, and triad census) wouldn’t produce MCMC fashions that might converge. So, I used to be not in a position to estimate these parameters.
However, I used to be in a position to estimate the ERGM parameters for the presence of edges, transitive triplets (ttriple), and density, and their values are present in Table 1. The column labled ERGM~EDGES will be interpreted as a log odds measure of the density of the community. As may need anticipated based mostly on the evaluation of betweenness and closeness, in addition to the expansion of the variety of notes of the community, the log-odds of the likelihood of any tie (i.e. the density) crashes and begins to turn out to be damaging beginning in 2001. The column labeled ERGM~DENSITY reveal an analogues pattern. The column labeled ERGM~TTRIPLE demonstrates a barely completely different pattern. It appears to begin modestly low (I couldn’t get the mannequin to run for 1995 information, so it begins in 1996) after which appears to stage out at approximate zero, not turning into extra damaging or optimistic because the community grows. This doubtlessly represents the relative lack of significance of transitive triplets within the micro construction of this community.
Overall, I’d be skeptical to make any grand claims concerning the utility of this ERGM evaluation. Although my MCMLE fashions appeared to converge, I used to be not in a position to run goodness of match analyses to check how nicely these estimates match the mannequin and my precise networks. Additionally, ideally, I’d run these analyses on a sooner laptop or achieve entry to a university-based tremendous laptop since that is such a big information set and I’m doing so many analyses with this time collection panel information.
5) Discussion
One clear puzzle emerges from this evaluation: whereas betweenness universally will increase for this community and closeness universally decreases, eigenvector centrality climbs for some papers and crashes for others. What’s extra, Figure 8’s boxplot overview of eigenvector centrality scores by yr exhibits that, on common, the papers are inconsequential to the general construction of the community and a handful of papers emerge to the highest as by far probably the most dominant. What are these papers and what may it signify each for this as a site of scientific data and for the politics of worldwide well being precedence setting?
Through analyzing the titles, abstracts, and authors of the papers which might be most vital by way of eigenvector centrality and diploma, ten papers emerge as centrally vital:
- The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A Quality-of-Life Instrument for Use in International Clinical Trials in Oncology
- The MOS 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) 1. Conceptual Framework and Item Selection
- Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Source Information (1994)
- Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Source Information (2000)
- Measurement of affected person end result in arthritis
- Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 illnesses and accidents in 21 areas, 1990–2010: a scientific evaluation for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010
- Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of loss of life for 20 age teams in 1990 and 2010: a scientific evaluation for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010
- Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
- Alternative projections of mortality and incapacity by trigger 1990–2020: Global Burden of Disease Study
- A comparative threat evaluation of burden of illness and harm attributable to 67 threat components and threat issue clusters in 21 areas, 1990–2010: a scientific evaluation for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010
There are a number of issues which might be exceptional about this listing of the (by far) most vital papers on this quotation community. First, apart from the primary most vital paper—which is concerning the medical technique of diagnosing and treating most cancers—none of those items are a few particular illness and even class of illnesses. Instead, they’re all meta-analyses or statistical overviews of epidemiological traits in noncommunicable illnesses and their relative burdens globally. Second, the illness upon which they’re focusing tends to be biased in the direction of wealthy-world well being points: the DSM for psychological well being points (which has a extremely western-centric focus) and arthritis (has not been thought of a rating international well being precedence). Finally, all them should do with capturing international measurements, standardized practices and protocols, and dominant paradigms—constructed from applications and practices rooted within the U.S. and Europe—which might be to function fashions for well being care techniques within the international south. Considering that this community, examined from 1995 by means of 2016 was about “international well being” and noncommunicable illnesses, it appears shocking that these can be the overwhelmingly dominant papers on this sparsely linked community.
6) Conclusion
I started this paper with a commentary on the ways in which scientific quotation networks can allow and constrain the biopolitics of worldwide well being by reinforcing the legitimated framing of illnesses and their interventions in sure methods, and never others. This paper factors to the chance that the structural evolution of the NCD / international well being tutorial paper quotation community has contributed considerably to this biopolitical conundrum. Specifically, vital puzzle within the discipline of worldwide well being is: why have non-communicable and power illnesses been so dramatically marginalized throughout the international well being precedence combine? First, evaluating the burden of noncommunicable illnesses (NCDs) and infectious illnesses to their relative magnitude of funding by way of improvement help for well being (DAH) demonstrates a exceptional disparity. Despite accounting for greater than 30% of the general illness burden globally (particularly in low and center revenue nations), lower than 1% of all DAH is allotted particularly to care, remedy, and prevention of noncommunicable illness (Daniels, Donilon, & Bollyky, 2014).
Second, there was a concerted effort by the noncommunicable illness neighborhood of practitioners and students to lift the profile of NCDs on the worldwide stage (Geneau et al., 2010). Much of this political and scientific labor has culminated in uncommon and extremely vital United Nations General Assembly High Level Meeting targeted on the worldwide burden of NCDs in 2011. This assembly was the primary UNGA High Level Meeting on a well being subject since HIV/AIDS in 2000. Yet, regardless of the eye from international leaders on the world stage, almost no new assets have been dedicated and invested in international NCD care and administration. Finally, central to this debate has been a query concerning the nature of the social building of NCDs globally, particularly on the subject of the burden, causal sources, and mandatory systems-level interventions to fulfill the burden. Leading as much as the 2011 UNGA High Level Meeting on NCDs, the World Health Organization (WHO) has doubled down on a targeted framework of restricted shared “life-style modifiable” threat components because the dominant causal supply of the NCDs globally. Dubbed the “4×4 Framework”, the WHO has sought to restrict the phrases of debate and focus to what they deem to be the 4 most “vital” NCDs and the corresponding particular person stage life-style modifiable dangers: most cancers, diabetes, cardio-vascular illness, and power respiratory illness; tobacco use, unhealthy diets, bodily inactivity, and the dangerous use of alcohol (WHO, 2013). Scholars and practitioners, particularly these offering care in poor, distant areas of the world have taken purpose at this framing, saying that it excludes a lot of the vital burden of sickness, particularly amongst the very poor and rural populations all over the world (Binagwaho, Muhimpundu, & Bukhman, 2014; Bukhman, Mocumbi, & Horton, 2015; Kwan et al., 2016; Bukhman et al., 2015).
These three interlocked challenges—the sheer disparity between NCDs / infectious illnesses’ assets and burden, the negligible progress in useful resource commitments regardless of NCDs’ expanded profile on the worldwide stage, and the dynamic scientific and political contest of NCDs’ social building and framing—create an attention-grabbing empirical puzzle that has vital implications for the politics and governance of worldwide well being. What is obstructing the political progress in increasing assets and tutorial deal with a progressive technique for NCD care and management?
One speculation—that’s supported by the findings of this paper—is that the dominant NCD framing (particularly from the WHO and the worldwide scientific neighborhood) traditionally has been rooted in a North American / European-centric view: a slender set of sicknesses and their related individual-level, modifiable, statistically decided threat components as the foundation causes (4×4 Framework). This framing has blocked the political momentum of NCDs as a result of 1) it situates the locus of trigger in dangerous selections/behaviors of people and a couple of) it seems to be an sad byproduct of financial improvement and revenue progress. This framing renders the true expertise of the poorest and most marginalized invisible to international coverage makers and makes it tough for activists to demand new modes of financing to assist ministries of well being to construct progressive NCD remedy and prevention applications.
Works Cited
Airhihenbuwa, C. O., Ford, C. L., & Iwelunmor, J. I. (2014). Why tradition issues in well being interventions: classes from HIV/AIDS stigma and NCDs. Health Educ Behav, 41(1), 78–84. [pii]
Babchuk, N., Keith, B., & Peters, G. (1999). Collaboration in sociology and different scientific disciplines: A comparative pattern evaluation of scholarship within the social, bodily, and mathematical sciences. The American Sociologist, 30(3), 5–21.
Binagwaho, A., Muhimpundu, M. A., & Bukhman, G. (2014). 80 underneath 40 by 2020: an fairness agenda for NCDs and accidents. The Lancet, 383(9911), 3–4.
Beaglehole, R., & Bonita, R. (2010). What is international well being? Global Health Action, 3(0), 1–2.
Brown, P. (1995). Naming and Framing: The Social Construction of Diagnosis and Illness. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 34–52.
Bukhman, G., Mocumbi, A. O., & Horton, R. (2015). Reframing NCDs and accidents for the poorest billion: a Lancet Commission. The Lancet, 386(10000), 1221–1222.
Bukhman, G., Bavuma, C., Gishoma, C., Gupta, N., Kwan, G. F., Laing, R., & Beran, D. (2015). Endemic diabetes on the planet’s poorest folks. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, 3(6), 402–403.
Cappell, C. L., & Guterbock, T. M. (1992). Visible Colleges: The Social and Conceptual Structure of Sociology Specialties. American Sociological Review, 57(2), 266–273.
Conrad, P., & Barker, Ok. Ok. (2010). The social building of sickness: key insights and coverage implications. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51(S), S67–S79.
Daipha, P. (2001). The mental and social group of ASA 1990–1997: Exploring the interface between the self-discipline of sociology and its practitioners. The American Sociologist, 32(3), 73–90.
Daniels, M. E., Donilon, T. E., & Bollyky, T. J. (2014). The Emerging Global Health Crisis: Noncommunicable Diseases in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. New York.
Fassin, D. (2012). That Obscure Object of Global Health. In Medical Anthropology on the Intersections: Histories, Activisms, and Futures, (p. 352).
Geneau, R., Stuckler, D., Stachenko, S., McKee, M., Ebrahim, S., Basu, S., …Beaglehole, R. (2010). Raising the precedence of stopping power illnesses: a political course of. The Lancet, 376(9753), 1689–1698. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61414-6
Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases, 2013-2020. Rep. World Health Organization, 2013. Web. <
Gondal, N. (2011). The native and international construction of data manufacturing in an emergent analysis discipline: An exponential random graph evaluation. Social Networks, 33(1), 20–30.
Goyal, S., Van Der Leij, M. J., & Moraga‐González, J. L. (2006). Economics : An Emerging Small World. The University of Chicago Press, 114(2), 403–412.
Hill, V., & Carley, Ok. M. (1999). An method to figuring out consensus in a subfield: The case of organizational tradition. Poetics, 27(1), 1–30.
Kaplan, N. (1965). The norms of quotation habits: Prolegomena to the footnote. American Documentation, 16(3), 179–184.
Katz, A. R. (2013). Noncommunicable illnesses: Global well being precedence or market alternative? An illustration of the World Health Organization at its worst and at its greatest. International Journal of Health Services, 43(3), 437–458.
Keane, C. (1998). Globality and Constructions of World Health. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 12(2), 226–240.
Kessler, M. M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American Documentation, 14(1), 10–25.
Kwan, G. F., Mayosi, B. M., Mocumbi, A. O., Miranda, J. J., Ezzati, M., Jain, Y., Bukhman, G. (2016). Global Burden of Cardiovascular Disease Endemic Cardiovascular Diseases of the Poorest Billion.
Lantz, P. M., & Booth, Ok. M. (1998). The social building of the breast most cancers epidemic. Social Science and Medicine, 46(7), 907–918.
Lievrouw, L., Rogers, E.M., Lowe, C.U., Nadel, E., 1987. Triangulation as analysis technique for figuring out invisible faculties amongst biomedical scientists. Social Networks 9 (3), 217–248.
Mamudu, H. M., Yang, J. S., & Novotny, T. E. (2011). UN decision on the prevention and management of non-communicable illnesses: a chance for international motion. Global Public Health, 6(4), 347–353.
Moody, J., & Light, R. (2006). A view from above: The evolving sociological panorama. American Sociologist, 37(2), 67–86.
Newman, M. E. J. The arithmetic of networks. Center for the Study of Complex Systems, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
Small, H., & Griffith, B. C. (1974). The Structure of Scientific Literatures I : Identifying and Graphing Specialties Author ( s ): Henry Small and Belver C . Griffith Published by : Sage Publications , Ltd . Stable URL : REFERENCES Linked references are av. Science Studies, 4(1), 17–40.
Šubelj, L., Fiala, D., & Bajec, M. (2014). Network-based statistical comparability of quotation topology of bibliographic databases. Scientific Reports, 4, 6496.
Wang, P., Sharpe, Ok., Robins, G. L., & Pattison, P. E. (2009). Exponential random graph (p *) fashions for affiliation networks. Social Networks, 31(1), 12–25.
Wasserman, Stanley; Faust, Katherine (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications (Structural Analysis within the Social Sciences) (p. 188). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.
Whyte, S. R. (2012). Chronicity and management: framing “noncommunicable illnesses” in Africa. Anthropology & Medicine, 19(1), 63–74.
Source link