Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40351371›Full record

ArticleTheory and society2025

Rethinking medicalization: unequal relations, hegemonic medicalization, and the medicalizing dividend.

Michael Halpin, Dagoberto Cortez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Theory and society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Michael HalpinDepartment of Sociology and Social Anthropology, Dalhousie University, 6135 University Drive, Halifax, NS Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9109-8290
Dagoberto CortezSociology Department, The University of Texas, 305 E 23rd St, Austin, TX USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6474-2228

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Medicalization is an important theory that has been subject to numerous debates. Drawing on three varied datasets, we forward a relational approach to medicalization that responds to critiques while aiming to reinvigorate the theory with new concepts and questions. In contrast to prior process-based work, our relational approach argues that medicalization is best understood as an action or activity undertaken by specific groups or actors. We further suggest that unequal relations characterize medicalization. Specifically, we argue that 1) groups or actors receive a benefit from participating in medicalization, which we call the medicalizing dividend and, 2) an actor/group occupies a hegemonic position in medicalizing relations, reaping the largest dividend and constraining other actors. While we assert that pharmaceutical companies are currently hegemonic, we argue that their hegemony is not indefinite. We discuss how our approach facilitates links between medicalization and other theories, while outlining future steps for medicalization research.

Indexed as

BiomedicalizationHealthHegemonyMedicalizationPharmaceuticalizationRelational Sociology

Identifiers

PMID40351371
PMCPMC12062157

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.