ArticleHealth and human rights2026
Governing Difference: Traditional Peoples' Rights and the Institutionalization of Traditional Medicine in South America.
Article in Health and human rights, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since the 1970s, the World Health Organization (WHO) has advanced "traditional medicine" as a global policy category for culturally grounded health care. In South America, this framework has encountered a distinct political landscape in which traditional peoples have emerged as collective subjects mobilizing around rights, territorial claims, and expanding conceptions of citizenship. This paper examines how the codification of "tradition" from an identity category into a health regulatory term reconfigures the conditions under which difference can be expressed, claimed, and sustained. Drawing on archival research across 10 South American countries, as well as WHO and United Nations documentation, the study traces how the global framework has been incorporated, requalified, or displaced across distinct national contexts. The analysis reveals a spectrum of regulatory arrangements in which institutional incorporation and the political force of collective difference are not commensurate, ranging from frameworks that engage with the political projects through which traditional peoples have sought to reshape citizenship to those in which "tradition" operates as a market authorization criterion detached from the subjects who sustain it. The codification of tradition into governable categories does not simply extend recognition to those who bear it; it reconfigures the terms under which they can act as political subjects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42440986PMC13334852What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.