Genrestratifiering och massmedias neutralisering av kritiken mot ADHD : Ett kunskapssociologiskt perspektiv

Genre stratification and the mass media’s neutralization of the critique of ADHD: A sociology of knowledge perspective This study examines how the Swedish mass media has dealt with the opposition against the neuropsychiatric diagnosis ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). Drawing on empirical data from eight of the largest newspapers in Sweden (n=778 articles) the study focuses on the scientific controversy of DAMP, 2000–2006. DAMP (Dysfunction in Attention, Motor Control and Perception) is a diagnostic term denoting difficulties similar to ADHD, and which was used in Sweden at the time of the controversy. The study uncovers the ideological role played by the mass media during the DAMP-controversy, and demonstrates the significance of genre. While the spokespersons for DAMP/ADHD were given exclusive and systematic access to the news genre, the forum of fact-production in the mass media, the critics of DAMP/ADHD were confined to arguing and expressing their opinions in the debate genre. Based on the various effects of genre differences a comprehensive analytical tool for the sociology of knowledge, called genre stratification, is developed in the study 

Experiencing Science in Action: The Use of Exhibition Techniques in Guided Tours to a Scientific Laboratory

The current paper presents a study conducted at CERN, Switzerland, to investigate visitors' and tour guides' use and appreciation of existing panels at visit itinerary points. The results were used to develop a set of recommendations for constructing optimal panels to assist the guides' explanation.

Emergency department triage scales and their components : a systematic review of the scientific evidence

Emergency department (ED) triage is used to identify patients' level of urgency and treat them based on their triage level. The global advancement of triage scales in the past two decades has generated considerable research on the validity and reliability of these scales. This systematic review aims to investigate the scientific evidence for published ED triage scales. The following questions are addressed: 1. Does assessment of individual vital signs or chief complaints affect mortality during the hospital stay or within 30 days after arrival at the ED? 2. What is the level of agreement between clinicians' triage decisions compared to each other or to a gold standard for each scale (reliability)? 3. How valid is each triage scale in predicting hospitalization and hospital mortality? A systematic search of the international literature published from 1966 through March 31, 2009 explored the British Nursing Index, Business Source Premier, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PubMed. Inclusion was limited to controlled studies of adult patients (≥15 years) visiting EDs for somatic reasons. Outcome variables were death in ED or hospital and need for hospitalization (validity). Methodological quality and clinical relevance of each study were rated as high, medium, or low. The results from the studies that met the inclusion criteria and quality standards were synthesized applying the internationally developed GRADE system. Each conclusion was then assessed as having strong, moderately strong, limited, or insufficient scientific evidence. If studies were not available, this was also noted. We found ED triage scales to be supported, at best, by limited and often insufficient evidence. The ability of the individual vital signs included in the different scales to predict outcome is seldom, if at all, studied in the ED setting. The scientific evidence to assess interrater agreement (reliability) was limited for one triage scale and insufficient or lacking for all other scales. Two of the scales yielded limited scientific evidence, and one scale yielded insufficient evidence, on which to assess the risk of early death or hospitalization in patients assigned to the two lowest triage levels on a 5-level scale (validity).

Forskning med juridiska förvecklingar : Om tolkningsflexibilitet i kontroversen om mässlingsvaccination och autism

Medical research with jurisdictional consequences: interpretative flexibility in the controversy over MMR vaccination and autism Based on the empirical case of the controversy of MMR vaccination and autism around the turn of the millennium, this paper argues for the analytical importance of the concept of “interpretative flexibility”. As shown, this concept is useful not only for the small subfield of sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) but also for the broader social sciences. First we analyse, by reference to interpretative flexibility, the initial dispute within medical research concerning evidence for and against a possible link between the measles component of the MMR vaccine and autism. In a second step we move beyond this traditional application of the concept, showing how the interpretative flexibility of the research results remains in society although consensus has been reached in the medical community. This further step is exemplified by two legal events, in Sweden and the US respectively. In both these cases the difficulties in providing uncontested evidence affected institutions and practices at great distance and with different outcomes. Our findings suggest the importance of not only applying the concept of interpretative flexibility to classical scientific laboratory disputes, but also connecting it to its societal manifestations.