ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2024
What Is a Disease for Doctors? A Realist Thematic Qualitative Analysis of the Interpretation of Clinical Vignettes.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Given the long-standing debate about the nature of the concept of disease, the objective of this study was to understand how doctors categorize a condition as a disease or not, and what the kind of information they use is. A survey with a set of eighteen clinical vignettes was designed, and nineteen physicians and senior students purposefully selected were asked to interpret those situations as diseases or not and to produce an anonymous short written piece of text providing the motivation of their choice. Realist thematic analysis was used to analyse the answers, and four themes emerged: the temporal dimension of a disease, reification of disease, disease as an existential condition, and disease as a motivation to action. The respondents' interpretations were very heterogeneous, supporting the idea that physicians do not share a common prototypical concept of disease. The results suggested that the interpretation of a condition as a disease or not is the final outcome of a process, in which information from objective, subjective, and socially mediated elements is taken into consideration. According to a critical realist and systemic approach, we hypothesize that the context of doctor-patient relationship could influence the interpretation of the same condition as being a disease or not.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.