User talk:Annamirly/Medical–industrial complex

Peer Review--Grace Kearns
This article looks great! I didn't change much, but one thought I had was that you could include some implications for patient interaction that is compounded by demographics like race and gender. I think this could go under the "patient level" section and could deal with the rise in midwifery due to mistrust of hospital births for some black women, as one example. A source I found for this is linked here, and writes that "individuals cared for by midwives in community settings had more than five times the odds of experiencing higher autonomy, higher respect and lower odds of mistreatment" and delves into the specifics based on race. You could also build on the international section with this article about cesarian sections and the MIC in China. These are just some ideas if you were looking for ways to add to the reach of your article, I think you are doing a great job! Gek21 (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review - Samhita Vellala
I like how the authors made the Lead, as well as the entirety of the page more concise to get key points across in a more effective manner. I like that they removed components of the article that didn't seem as relevant and actually expanded upon key concepts (i.e. the White Savior Industrial Complex), which I think serves to better address equity gaps (socioeconomic factors and race) that result in disparities with access to healthcare. The content added is neutral and is thoroughly backed up by sources and expert perspectives. The citation links work and are up to date as well. I think in terms of shortcomings, it may be helpful to include another country under India and Brazil and explaining the MIC in the context of that country just to add versatility to the article. Additionally, I think adding a greater spectrum of expert perspectives could help to present discourse around the MIC more comprehensively; are there any scholars who disagree with the claims made by scholars that are currently included in the article? Samhivellala (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Response to Peer Review
Thank you for your feedback! I really appreciate the sources you linked, Grace, and will be sure to add those if we have time!! Also, Samhita you make a great point about the need for more countries that we also agree with. We are going to make a comment on our talk page to encourage others to add in that field (as I don't think we have time anymore). Thanks again! Suh2 (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)