Literature DB >> 15686817

Repositioning the patient: the implications of being 'at risk'.

S Scott1, L Prior, F Wood, J Gray.   

Abstract

In the modern era of biomedical practice, genetic knowledge has redefined the idea of 'the patient' to include those who are 'at risk' of disease alongside those who are already sick. For such individuals, it is risk itself that constitutes the raison d'être of medical intervention. Using data from interviews with 58 users of a UK cancer genetics service together with data derived from clinical consultations, we consider the way such patients or clients make sense of a cancer genetic risk estimate and how they integrate genetic risk information into their lifeworld. In particular, we note that patient-clients who are 'at risk' tend to see themselves in a liminal position betwixt the healthy and the sick, and that such individuals consequently seek recourse to systems of medical surveillance that can continuously monitor their state of health. Our analysis also revealed the fact that many of those deemed by professionals to be at low risk of inheriting cancer-related mutations subsequently strove to be re-categorised as being at moderate or high risk of an adverse outcome. A number of explanations concerning lay health beliefs, lay 'representations' of health and the nature of the patient-client's lifeworld are examined and assessed in order to account for this apparent paradox.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15686817     DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  22 in total

1.  Beliefs and beyond: what can we learn from qualitative studies of lay people's understandings of cancer risk?

Authors:  Wendy L Lipworth; Heather M Davey; Stacy M Carter; Claire Hooker; Wendy Hu
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  Knowledge and expectations of women undergoing cancer genetic risk assessment: a qualitative analysis of free-text questionnaire comments.

Authors:  C Phelps; F Wood; P Bennett; K Brain; J Gray
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-02-23       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 3.  How risk is perceived, constructed and interpreted by clients in clinical genetics, and the effects on decision making: systematic review.

Authors:  Stephanie Sivell; Glyn Elwyn; Clara L Gaff; Angus J Clarke; Rachel Iredale; Chris Shaw; Joanna Dundon; Hazel Thornton; Adrian Edwards
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-10-30       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Researching Experiences of Cancer Risk Through Online Blogs: A Reflexive Account of Working Toward Ethical Practice.

Authors:  Emily Ross
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2019-08-17       Impact factor: 1.742

5.  Agency and choice in genetic counseling: Acknowledging patients' concerns.

Authors:  Kieran O'Doherty
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 6.  Ethical issues of predictive genetic testing for diabetes.

Authors:  Susanne B Haga
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2009-07-01

7.  SI RLTD: Risk Scores and Decision Making: The Anatomy of a Decision to Reduce Breast Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Christine Holmberg; Mary Daly; Worta McCaskill-Stevens
Journal:  J Nurs Healthc Chronic Illn       Date:  2010-12

8.  Decision aids for familial breast cancer: exploring women's views using focus groups.

Authors:  Frances Rapport; Rachel Iredale; Wendy Jones; Stephanie Sivell; Adrian Edwards; Jonathon Gray; Glyn Elwyn
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 3.377

9.  BRCA patients in Cuba, Greece and Germany: Comparative perspectives on public health, the state and the partial reproduction of 'neoliberal' subjects.

Authors:  Sahra Gibbon; Eirini Kampriani; Andrea Zur Nieden
Journal:  Biosocieties       Date:  2010-11-22

10.  Impact of delivery models on understanding genomic risk for type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  S B Haga; W T Barry; R Mills; L Svetkey; S Suchindran; H F Willard; G S Ginsburg
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2014-02-27       Impact factor: 2.000

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.