-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: At the same time as there is increasing awareness in medicine of the risks of exaggerating differences between men and women, there is a growing professional movement of 'gender-specific medicine' which is directed towards analysing 'sex' and 'gender' differences. The aim of this article is to empirically explore how the concepts of 'sex' and 'gender' are used in the new field of 'gender-specific medicine', as reflected in two medical journals which are foundational to this relatively new field. METHOD AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The data consist of all articles from the first issue of each journal in 2004 and an issue published three years later (n = 43). In addition, all editorials over this period were included (n = 61). Quantitative and qualitative content analyses were undertaken by the authors. Less than half of the 104 papers used the concepts of 'sex' and 'gender'. Less than 1 in 10 papers attempted any definition of the concepts. Overall, the given definitions were simple, unspecific and created dualisms between men and women. Almost all papers which used the two concepts did so interchangeably, with any possible interplay between 'sex' and gender' referred to only in six of the papers. CONCLUSION: The use of the concepts of 'sex' and gender' in 'gender-specific medicine' is conceptually muddled. The simple, dualistic and individualised use of these concepts increases the risk of essentialism and reductivist thinking. It therefore highlights the need to clarify the use of the terms 'sex' and 'gender' in medical research and to develop more effective ways of conceptualising the interplay between 'sex' and 'gender' in relation to different diseases.
PLoS ONE 01/2012; 7(4):e34193. · 4.09 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Gender-specific medicine, a new and increasingly influential ethos within medical research and practice, has received little critical attention to date. The objective of this article is to critically examine the attributes of gender-specific medicine as imparted by its advocates. Through a critical discourse analysis of its two leading academic journals, we identify five interrelated discourses: of male/female difference; of hegemonic biology; of men's disadvantages; of biological and social reductionism; and of the fragmented body. Together these comprise a master discourse of the 'gender-specific body'. The discourse of the 'gender-specific body' is discussed in relation to the current neoliberal political agenda which frames healthcare as a market good and locates health and illness in individual bodies rather than in the wider social arrangements of society. We argue that the 'gender-specific body' threatens not only to turn back the clock to a vision of the biological body as fixed and determinate, but to extend this ever deeper into the social imagination. Lost in the process is any meaningful sense of the human body as a relatively open system which develops in interaction with its social world. We propose that, as it gains momentum, the 'gender-specific body' is likely progressively to circumscribe our thinking about the health of women and men in potentially problematic ways.
Health 12/2010; 15(6):571-87. · 2.10 Impact Factor
-
Ellen Annandale
Social Science [?] Medicine 08/2010; · 2.70 Impact Factor
-
Ellen Annandale
11/2009: pages 97 - 112; , ISBN: 9781444314786
-
Ellen Annandale
Social Science [?] Medicine 09/2008; · 2.70 Impact Factor
-
Mary Dixon-Woods,
Debbie Cavers,
Shona Agarwal, Ellen Annandale,
Antony Arthur,
Janet Harvey,
Ron Hsu,
Savita Katbamna,
Richard Olsen,
Lucy Smith,
Richard Riley,
Alex J Sutton
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Conventional systematic review techniques have limitations when the aim of a review is to construct a critical analysis of a complex body of literature. This article offers a reflexive account of an attempt to conduct an interpretive review of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups in the UK METHODS: This project involved the development and use of the method of Critical Interpretive Synthesis (CIS). This approach is sensitised to the processes of conventional systematic review methodology and draws on recent advances in methods for interpretive synthesis.
Many analyses of equity of access have rested on measures of utilisation of health services, but these are problematic both methodologically and conceptually. A more useful means of understanding access is offered by the synthetic construct of candidacy. Candidacy describes how people's eligibility for healthcare is determined between themselves and health services. It is a continually negotiated property of individuals, subject to multiple influences arising both from people and their social contexts and from macro-level influences on allocation of resources and configuration of services. Health services are continually constituting and seeking to define the appropriate objects of medical attention and intervention, while at the same time people are engaged in constituting and defining what they understand to be the appropriate objects of medical attention and intervention. Access represents a dynamic interplay between these simultaneous, iterative and mutually reinforcing processes. By attending to how vulnerabilities arise in relation to candidacy, the phenomenon of access can be better understood, and more appropriate recommendations made for policy, practice and future research.
By innovating with existing methods for interpretive synthesis, it was possible to produce not only new methods for conducting what we have termed critical interpretive synthesis, but also a new theoretical conceptualisation of access to healthcare. This theoretical account of access is distinct from models already extant in the literature, and is the result of combining diverse constructs and evidence into a coherent whole. Both the method and the model should be evaluated in other contexts.
BMC Medical Research Methodology 02/2006; 6:35. · 2.67 Impact Factor
-
Mary Dixon-Woods,
Debbie Cavers,
Shona Agarwal, Ellen Annandale,
Antony J. Arthur,
Janet Harvey,
Ronald T Hsu,
Savita Katbamna,
Richard Olsen,
Lucy K. Smith,
Richard D Riley,
Alex J Sutton
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Provisional PDF, corresponding to the article as it appeared upon acceptance. Also available at http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/6/35 Background: Conventional systematic review techniques have limitations when the aim of a review is to construct a critical analysis of a complex body of literature. This article offers a reflexive account of an attempt to conduct an interpretive review of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups in the UK Methods: This project involved the development and use of the method of Critical Interpretive Synthesis (CIS). This approach is sensitised to the processes of conventional systematic review methodology and draws on recent advances in methods for interpretive synthesis. Results: Many analyses of equity of access have rested on measures of utilisation of health services, but these are problematic both methodologically and conceptually. A more useful means of understanding access is offered by the synthetic construct of candidacy. Candidacy describes how people’s eligibility for healthcare is determined between themselves and health services. It is a continually negotiated property of individuals, subject to multiple influences arising both from people and their social contexts and from macro-level influences on allocation of resources and configuration of services. Health services are continually constituting and seeking to define the appropriate objects of medical attention and intervention, while at the same time people are engaged in constituting and defining what they understand to be the appropriate objects of medical attention and intervention. Access represents a dynamic interplay between these simultaneous, iterative and mutually reinforcing processes. By attending to how vulnerabilities arise in relation to candidacy, the phenomenon of access can be better understood, and more appropriate recommendations made for policy, practice and future research. Discussion: By innovating with existing methods for interpretive synthesis, it was possible to produce not only new methods for conducting what we have termed critical interpretive synthesis, but also a new theoretical conceptualisation of access to healthcare. This theoretical account of access is distinct from models already extant in the literature, and is the result of combining diverse constructs and evidence into a coherent whole. Both the method and the model should be evaluated in other contexts.
-
