When Do Symptoms Become a Disease?
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Annals of internal medicine
(Impact Factor: 17.81).
06/2001; 134(9 Pt 2):803-8. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-134-9_Part_2-200105011-00002
When do symptoms become a disease? Are there rules or norms, currently or in the past, that tell us when a particular collection of largely symptom-based criteria has enough specificity, utility, or plausibility to justify the appellation disease ? The history of numerous symptom-based diagnoses in use today suggests partial answers to these questions. The 19th-century shift to understanding ill health as a result of specific diseases, increasingly defined more by signs than symptoms, led to a loss of status for illnesses that possessed little clinical or laboratory specificity. Nevertheless, clinicians then and now have used symptom-based diagnoses. Some of these diagnoses owe their existence as specific diseases to the norms and practices of an older era much different from our own. Others have not only thrived but have resisted plausible redefinition done by using more "objective" criteria. Many strategies, such as response-to-treatment arguments, quantitative methods (for example, factor analysis), and consensus conferences, have been used to find or confer specificity in symptom-based diagnoses. These strategies are problematic and have generally been used after symptom-based diagnoses have been recognized and defined. These historical observations emphasize that although biological and clinical factors have set boundaries for which symptoms might plausibly be linked in a disease concept, social influences have largely determined which symptom clusters have become diseases.
Available from: Mary Ebeling
- "At the root of the definitional struggles over diagnosis is the difficulty in discerning, interpreting and translating the meaning of symptoms. Aronowitz shows that by the 20th century symptoms were largely considered subjective criteria independent of a particular disease by medical practitioners, and as advances in biomedical technologies had progressed, signsdalterations in organs and biochemistry, for instancedhad become the " objective " data that a doctor would use to constitute a disease (Aronowitz, 2001). Medical practice began to rely upon the biochemical data collected from a patient rather than on outward manifestations of symptoms as embodied by the patient as proof of a particular disease. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: During more than a decade of direct-to-consumer advertising (DTC) of pharmaceuticals in the United States, several highly controversial and contested disease states have been promoted to affect diagnostic and prescribing outcomes that are favorable to a company's branded drug. Influencing medical diagnosis is essential to the branding of a disease, which helps to protect pharmaceutical intellectual property and assures higher profits for drug companies. Enormous marketing as well as medical resources are deployed to ensure that new diagnoses of disease states are recognized. While much work has been done investigating the marketing processes necessary to shape and define diagnoses for many of these new disease states, such as Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder (PMDD), the promotion of self-diagnosis within pharmaceutical marketing campaigns garner little sociological attention. This article reviews and analyzes branded disease awareness campaigns sponsored by pharmaceutical companies that employ self-diagnostic "tools". By using the example of one specific disease state, PMDD, I illustrate how the marketing of self-diagnosis transforms the patient into a consumer in order to achieve the aims of a drug company. This example is contextualized within the larger theoretical framework on the sociology of diagnosis. Consideration is given to how the marketing of self-diagnosis goes beyond Jutel's (2009) description of diagnosis as being the "classification tool of medicine" and becomes a marketing tool to construct a well-educated consumer who will demand medical diagnoses inline with a drug company's objectives.
Available from: scidok.sulb.uni-saarland.de
- ". Solche chronisch rezidivierende oder persistierende medizinisch ungeklärte körperliche Symptome werden in der Inneren Medizin als funktionelle somatische Syndrome ( FSS ) bezeichnet [ Mayou 2002 ] . Aber ab wann kann eine Ansammlung von körperlichen Symptomen als FSS definiert werden und besitzt genug Spezifität , um als " Krankheit " bezeichnet zu werden [ Aronowitz 2001 ] ? "
Available from: umu.diva-portal.org
- "How specific symptoms are accepted as a disease is partly governed by cultural norms in society ( Aronowitz 2001 ) . Also , ability to work seems to be governed by the expectations and beliefs of the individual and society ( Turk et al . "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Chronic neck pain, a common cause of disability, seems to be the result of several interacting mechanisms. In addition to degenerative and inflammatory changes and trauma, psychological and psychosocial factors are also involved. One common type of trauma associated with chronic neck pain is whiplash injury; this sometimes results in whip-lash-associated disorder (WAD), a controversial condition with largely unknown pathogenetic mechanisms. We studied the prevalence of chronic neck pain of traumatic and non-traumatic origin and compared the prevalence of, sociodemographic data, self-perceived health, workload and chronic lowback pain in these groups. In a ready-made questionnaire (MONICA study), we added questions about cervical spine and low-back complaints. 6,000 (72%) completed a self-administered questionnaire. 43% reported neck pain: 48% of women and 38% of men. Women of working age had more neck pain than retired women, a phenomenon not seen in men. 19% of the studied population suffered from chronic neck pain and it was more frequent in women. A history of neck trauma was common in those with chronic neck pain. Those with a history of neck trauma perceived their health worse and were more often on sick-leave. About 50% of those with traumatic and non-traumatic chronic neck pain also had chronic low-back pain. We assessed the subjective and objective neuropsychological functioning in 42 patients with chronic neck pain, 21 with a whiplash trauma, and 21 without previous neck trauma. Despite cognitive complaints, the WAD patients had normal neuropsychological functioning, but the WAD group especially had deviant MMPI results—indicating impaired coping ability and somatization.WAD patients had no alterations in cerebral blood-flow pattern, as measured by rCBF-SPECT and SPM analysis, compared to healthy controls. This contrasts with the non-traumatic group with chronic neck pain, which showed marked blood-flow changes. The blood-flow changes in the non-trau-matic group were similar to those described earlier in pain patients but— remarkably enough—were different from those in the WAD group. Chronic neck pain of whiplash and non-traumatic origin appears to be unique in some respects. A better understanding of the underlying pathological mechanisms is a prerequisite for prevention of the development of such chronic pain syndromes and for improvement of the treatment of patients with severe symptoms.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.