8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      How medical technologies shape the experience of illness

      research-article
      1 , 2 , , 3
      Life Sciences, Society and Policy
      Springer Berlin Heidelberg
      Illness, Technology, Disease, Phenomenology

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In this article we explore how diagnostic and therapeutic technologies shape the lived experiences of illness for patients. By analysing a wide range of examples, we identify six ways that technology can (trans)form the experience of illness (and health). First, technology may create awareness of disease by revealing asymptomatic signs or markers (imaging techniques, blood tests). Second, the technology can reveal risk factors for developing diseases (e.g., high blood pressure or genetic tests that reveal risks of falling ill in the future). Third, the technology can affect and change an already present illness experience (e.g., the way blood sugar measurement affects the perceived symptoms of diabetes). Fourth, therapeutic technologies may redefine our experiences of a certain condition as diseased rather than unfortunate (e.g. assisted reproductive technologies or symptom based diagnoses in psychiatry). Fifth, technology influences illness experiences through altering social-cultural norms and values regarding various diagnoses. Sixth, technology influences and changes our experiences of being healthy in contrast and relation to being diseased and ill. This typology of how technology forms illness and related conditions calls for reflection regarding the phenomenology of technology and health. How are medical technologies and their outcomes perceived and understood by patients? The phenomenological way of approaching illness as a lived, bodily being-in-the-world is an important approach for better understanding and evaluating the effects that medical technologies may have on our health, not only in defining, diagnosing, or treating diseases, but also in making us feel more vulnerable and less healthy in different regards.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The social construction of illness: key insights and policy implications.

          The social construction of illness is a major research perspective in medical sociology. This article traces the roots of this perspective and presents three overarching constructionist findings. First, some illnesses are particularly embedded with cultural meaning--which is not directly derived from the nature of the condition--that shapes how society responds to those afflicted and influences the experience of that illness. Second, all illnesses are socially constructed at the experiential level, based on how individuals come to understand and live with their illness. Third, medical knowledge about illness and disease is not necessarily given by nature but is constructed and developed by claims-makers and interested parties. We address central policy implications of each of these findings and discuss fruitful directions for policy-relevant research in a social constructionist tradition. Social constructionism provides an important counterpoint to medicine's largely deterministic approaches to disease and illness, and it can help us broaden policy deliberations and decisions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Book: not found

            The Medicalization of Society on the Transformation of Human Conditions into Treatable Disorders

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Do diseases have a prestige hierarchy? A survey among physicians and medical students.

              Surveys have shown that the prestige of medical specialities is ordered hierarchically. We investigate whether similar tacit agreement in the medical community also applies to diseases, since such rankings can affect priority settings in medical practice. A cross-sectional survey was performed in three samples of physicians and medical students in Norway in 2002. A questionnaire was sent to 305 senior doctors (response rate, 79%), 500 general practitioners (response rate, 65%) and 490 final-year medical students (response rate, 64%). Outcome measures were ratings on a 1-9 scale of the prestige these respondents believed most health personnel would accord to a sample set of 38 different diseases as well as 23 medical specialities. Both diseases and specialities were clearly and consistently ranked according to prestige. Myocardial infarction, leukaemia and brain tumour were among the highest ranked, and fibromyalgia and anxiety neurosis were among the lowest. Among specialities, neurosurgery and thoracic surgery were accorded the highest rank, and geriatrics and dermatovenerology the lowest. Our interpretation of the data is that diseases and specialities associated with technologically sophisticated, immediate and invasive procedures in vital organs located in the upper parts of the body are given high prestige scores, especially where the typical patient is young or middle-aged. At the other end, low prestige scores are given to diseases and specialities associated with chronic conditions located in the lower parts of the body or having no specific bodily location, with less visible treatment procedures, and with elderly patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                b.m.hofmann@medisin.uio.no
                fredrik.svenaeus@sh.se
                Journal
                Life Sci Soc Policy
                Life Sci Soc Policy
                Life Sciences, Society and Policy
                Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                2195-7819
                3 February 2018
                3 February 2018
                December 2018
                : 14
                : 3
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 1516 2393, GRID grid.5947.f, Institute for the health sciences, , Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), ; Gjøvik, Norway
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8921, GRID grid.5510.1, Centre of Medical Ethics, , University of Oslo, ; PO Box 1130, Blindern, N-0318 Oslo, Norway
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0679 2457, GRID grid.412654.0, Centre for Studies in Practical Knowledge, School of Culture and Learning, , Södertörn University, ; 141 89 Huddinge, Sweden
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6709-4265
                Article
                69
                10.1186/s40504-018-0069-y
                5797484
                29397458
                7214e6c2-2bab-47bb-b9a5-01fbd8dd2a40
                © The Author(s). 2018

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                : 27 October 2017
                : 26 January 2018
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                illness,technology,disease,phenomenology
                illness, technology, disease, phenomenology

                Comments

                Comment on this article