Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17195575›Full record

ReviewHealth care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy2006

Psychosocial and psychodynamic factors influencing health care utilisation.

Thomas Maier

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 75% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Thomas MaierPsychiatric Department, Zurich University Hospital, Culmannstrasse 8, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland. thomas.maier@usz.ch
University Hospital of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper aims to elucidate some dysfunctional aspects of health care utilisation by combining concepts from modern systems theory and from psychoanalysis. Contemporary health care in industrialised countries can be conceived as a social system in terms of modern systems theory. According to this theory, social systems are operating on the basis of a 'guiding difference,' which in the case of health care is the distinction between 'healthy' and 'ill.' Its rigidity in adhering to the healthy-ill dichotomy exposes health care to being collusively entangled in the interpersonal defence arrangements of patients. In the psychoanalytic view, individual conflicts can be warded off from consciousness not only by intrapsychic defence, but also by interpersonal defence mechanisms. These mechanisms involve the patients' close social environment, often including doctors and hospitals. The functioning and the motivational structure of health care itself shows features of neurotic defence: not only its representatives, but health care as a whole act in a rigid, obsessive manner in order to separate the healthy from the ill and to battle against (presumed) diseases. This obsession sometimes results in excessive diagnostic activism and in inconsiderate application of aggressive medical treatments. Both are inappropriate with regard to the salient problem of modern medicine: the increase of chronic nonfatal diseases like depression and chronic pain. The described defence mechanisms are unconscious not only to patients but also to health care professionals (let alone health politicians), and are contributing to dysfunctional health care overuse.

Indexed as

Psychoanalytic TheorySystems TheoryAggressionHealth ServicesHumansInterpersonal RelationsModels, OrganizationalMotivationSelf Concept

Identifiers

PMID17195575
OpenAlexW2162694510

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.