Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34713910›Full record

ArticleSociology of health & illness2022

Searching for diagnostic certainty, governing risk: Patients' ambivalent experiences of medical testing.

Kiran Pienaar, Alan Petersen

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sociology of health & illness, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Why do people choose not to take part in screening? Qualitative interview study of atrial fibrillation screening nonparticipation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kiran PienaarSociology Department, School of Social Sciences and Humanities, Deakin University, Geelong, Vic., Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4770-7882
Alan PetersenSociology Program, School of Social Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Vic., Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2755-0227
Deakin University · AUMonash University · AU

Funding

Australian Research Council DP170100504
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diagnosis is pivotal to medicine's epistemic system: it serves to explain individual symptoms, classify them into recognizable conditions and determine their prognosis and treatment. Medical tests, or investigative procedures for detecting and monitoring disease, play a central role in diagnosis. While testing promises diagnostic certainty or a definitive risk assessment, it often produces uncertainties and new questions which call for yet further tests. In short, testing, regardless of its specific application, is imbued with meaning and emotionally fraught. In this article, we explore individuals' ambivalent experiences of testing as they search for diagnostic certainty, and the anxieties and frustrations of those for whom it remains elusive. Combining insights from sociological work on ambivalence and the biopolitics of health, and drawing on qualitative interviews with Australian healthcare recipients who have undergone testing in the context of clinical practice, we argue that these experiences are explicable in light of the contradictory impulses and tensions associated with what we term 'bio-subjectification'. We consider the implications of our analysis in light of the development of new tests that produce ever finer delineations between healthy and diseased populations, concluding that their use will likely multiply uncertainties and heighten rather than lessen anxieties.

Indexed as

AffectAustraliaHumansUncertaintyambivalenceartificial intelligence (AI)AustraliabiopoliticsCOVID-19diagnostic testingqualitative studysick rolesubjectivity

Identifiers

PMID34713910
PMCPMC9298388
OpenAlexW3208965651

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.