Definitions of health and disease among physicians and Społem PSS employees
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20883/jms.2017.118Keywords:
disease, definitions of health and disease, health, physicians, sociology of health and illness, Społem PSS employeesAbstract
Aim. Definitions of health and disease play an important role in the organization and functioning of a health care system. The meanings attached to both phenomena also shape individual’s health behaviours and may be more important for their understanding that one’s social status. Thus, the aim of the study was to determine how the educational status and kind of work influence the concepts of health and disease. It also aimed to determine what criteria do physicians and Społem PSS employees use while talking about health and disease and whether lay concepts of health differ from their professional counterparts.Material and Methods. The research was carried out between May and August 2013 among one hundred physicians and one hundred Społem PSS employees. Thus, the results refer to people who are professionally active. Respondents were questioned via a structured questionnaire which contained questions on their self-definitions of health and disease and the criteria of their evaluation.
Results. The research has revealed important differences in definitions of health and disease between physicians and clerks from Społem PSS. While physicians used a medical criterion to define health more often, Społem PSS employees defined it according to mixed and subjective criteria. As for disease, while respondents from both groups defined it mainly in medical criteria, all Społem PSS employees described it in pathological terms; physicians, however, defined it mainly as an abstract lack of well-being. On the other hand, many respondents understood both phenomena as multidimensional which proves that both terms contain many contradicting meanings and are difficult to articulate. Also among physicians, high tendency to overmedicalization of many phenomena was observed.
Conclusions. It has been proven that educational status and kind of work influence the way people understand health and disease. Thus, this research may be useful for health education and in planning health promotion and preventive actions.
Downloads
References
Hesslow G. Do we need a concept of disease? Theor Med. 1993;14(1):1–14.
Hofmann B. On the triad disease, illness and sickness. J Med Phil. 2002;27(6):651–673. doi:10.1076/jmep.27.6.651.13793.
Rosenberg CE. The tyranny of diagnosis: specific entities and individual experience. Milbank Q. 2002;80(2):237–260.
Domaradzki J. O definicjach zdrowia i choroby. Folia Med Lodz. 2013;40(1):5–29.
Domaradzki J. O skrytości zdrowia. O problemach z konceptualizacją pojęcia zdrowie. Hygeia Pub Health. 2013;48(4):408–419.
Julliard K, Klimenko E, Jacob MS. Definitions of health among healthcare providers. Nurs Sci Q. 2006;19(3):265–271. doi: 10.1177/0894318406289575.
Puchalski K. Kryteria zdrowia w świadomości potoczne.Prom Zdr. 1994;1(1–2):53–69.
Puchalski K. Zdrowie w świadomości społecznej. Krajowe Centrum Promocji Zdrowia w Miejscu Pracy, Łódź. 1997.
Sęk K, Scigała I, Pasilkowski T, Beisert M, Bleja A. Subiektywne koncepcje zdrowia. Wybrane uwarunkowania. Prz Psychol. 1992;35(3):351–363.
Włodarczyk C, Boczkowski A. Z badań nad świadomością zdrowotną społeczeństwa polskiego. Pr Zabezp Społ. 1989;31(6):43–49.
Czarnecka M, Cierpiałkowska L. Naukowe a subiektywne koncepcje zdrowia i choroby wśród studentów i ich determinanty. Now Lek. 2007;76(2):161–165.
Boruchovitch E, Mednick BR. The meaning of health and illness: some considerations for health psychology. Psico-USF. 2002;7(2):175–183. [cited 2013 December 10]. Available from: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/pusf/v7n2/v7n2a06.pdf.
Twaddle A, Disease, illness and sickness revisited. In: Twaddle A, Nordenfelt L (eds.). Disease, illness and sickness: three central concepts in the theory of health. Studies on Health and Society 18. Linköping 1994; p. 1–18.
Hofmann B. On the triad disease, illness and sickness. J Med Philos. 2002;27(6):651–673.
Barker K. Electronic support groups, patient-consumers, and medicalization: the case of contested illness. J Health Soc Behav. 2008;49(1):20–36. doi: 10.1177/002214650804900103.
Dumit J. Illnesses you have to fight to get: facts as forces in uncertain, emergent illnesses. Soci Sci Med. 2006;62(3):577–590. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.06.018.
Hadler NM. If you have to prove you are ill, you can’t get well. The object lesson of fibromyalgia. Spine. 1996;21(20):2397–2400. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199610150-00021.
Jeszke J. Historyczne źródła współczesnych nurtów lecznictwa niemedycznego i ich społecznej akceptacji. In: Libiszowska-Żółtkowska M, Ogryzko-Wiewiórowska M, Piątkowski W (eds.). Szkice z socjologii medycyny. Wydawnictwo UMCS, Lublin 1998; p. 63–84.
Piątkowski W. Beyond medicine. Non-medical methods of treatment in Poland. Frankfurt am Main/Berlin/Bern/Bruxelles/New York/Oxford/Warszawa/Wien: Peter Lang, 2012.
Herzlich C. Health and illness. Academic Press, London 1973.
Williams R. Concepts of health: an analysis of lay logic. Sociology. 1983;17(2):185–204.
D’Houtard A, Field M. The image of health: variations in perceptions by social class in a French population. Sociol Health Ill. 1984;6(1):30–60.
Blaxter M. The causes of disease: women talking. Soc Sci Med. 1983;17(2): 59–69.
Blaxter M. Health. Polity Press, Cambridge 2010.
Puchalski K Świadomość i zachowania zdrowotne pracowników. In: Korzeniowska E, Puchalski K (eds.). Nisko wykształceni pracownicy a zdrowie – wyzwania dla edukacji zdrowotnej. Riga Stradins University, Ryga 2010; p. 51–67.
Klimenko E, Julliard K, Lu SH, Song H. Models of health: a survey of practitioners. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2006;12(4):258–267. doi:10.1016/j.ctcp.2006.05.003.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2017 Jan Domaradzki, Piotr Kordel
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
