功能-器官区分的意义和作用:精神病学和神经病学服务临床医生的研究。

IF 1.2 3区 社会学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Alice Chesterfield, Jordan Harvey, Callum Hendrie, Sam Wilkinson, Norha Vera San Juan, Vaughan Bell
{"title":"功能-器官区分的意义和作用:精神病学和神经病学服务临床医生的研究。","authors":"Alice Chesterfield, Jordan Harvey, Callum Hendrie, Sam Wilkinson, Norha Vera San Juan, Vaughan Bell","doi":"10.1136/medhum-2023-012667","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The functional-organic distinction attempts to differentiate disorders with diagnosable biological causes from those without and is a central axis on which diagnoses, medical specialities and services are organised. Previous studies report poor agreement between clinicians regarding the meanings of the terms and the conditions to which they apply, as well as noting value-laden implications of relevant diagnoses. Consequently, we aimed to understand how clinicians working in psychiatry and neurology services navigate the functional-organic distinction in their work. Twenty clinicians (10 physicians, 10 psychologists) working in psychiatry and neurology services participated in semistructured interviews that were analysed applying a constructivist grounded theory approach. The distinction was described as often incongruent with how clinicians conceptualise patients' problems. Organic factors were considered to be objective, unambiguously identifiable and clearly causative, whereas functional causes were invisible and to be hypothesised through thinking and conversation. Contextual factors-including cultural assumptions, service demands, patient needs and colleagues' views-were key in how the distinction was deployed in practice. The distinction was considered theoretically unsatisfactory, eventually to be superseded, but clinical decision making required it to be used strategically. These uses included helping communicate medical problems, navigating services, hiding meaning by making psychological explanations more palatable, tackling stigma, giving hope, and giving access to illness identity. Clinicians cited moral issues at both individual and societal levels as integral to the conceptual basis and deployment of the functional-organic distinction and described actively navigating these as part of their work. There was a considerable distance between the status of the functional-organic distinction as a sound theoretical concept generalisable across conditions and its role as a gatekeeping tool within the structures of healthcare. Ambiguity and contradictions were considered as both obstacles and benefits when deployed in practice and strategic considerations were important in deciding which to lean on.</p>","PeriodicalId":46435,"journal":{"name":"Medical Humanities","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Meaning and role of functional-organic distinction: a study of clinicians in psychiatry and neurology services.\",\"authors\":\"Alice Chesterfield, Jordan Harvey, Callum Hendrie, Sam Wilkinson, Norha Vera San Juan, Vaughan Bell\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/medhum-2023-012667\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The functional-organic distinction attempts to differentiate disorders with diagnosable biological causes from those without and is a central axis on which diagnoses, medical specialities and services are organised. Previous studies report poor agreement between clinicians regarding the meanings of the terms and the conditions to which they apply, as well as noting value-laden implications of relevant diagnoses. Consequently, we aimed to understand how clinicians working in psychiatry and neurology services navigate the functional-organic distinction in their work. Twenty clinicians (10 physicians, 10 psychologists) working in psychiatry and neurology services participated in semistructured interviews that were analysed applying a constructivist grounded theory approach. The distinction was described as often incongruent with how clinicians conceptualise patients' problems. Organic factors were considered to be objective, unambiguously identifiable and clearly causative, whereas functional causes were invisible and to be hypothesised through thinking and conversation. Contextual factors-including cultural assumptions, service demands, patient needs and colleagues' views-were key in how the distinction was deployed in practice. The distinction was considered theoretically unsatisfactory, eventually to be superseded, but clinical decision making required it to be used strategically. These uses included helping communicate medical problems, navigating services, hiding meaning by making psychological explanations more palatable, tackling stigma, giving hope, and giving access to illness identity. Clinicians cited moral issues at both individual and societal levels as integral to the conceptual basis and deployment of the functional-organic distinction and described actively navigating these as part of their work. There was a considerable distance between the status of the functional-organic distinction as a sound theoretical concept generalisable across conditions and its role as a gatekeeping tool within the structures of healthcare. Ambiguity and contradictions were considered as both obstacles and benefits when deployed in practice and strategic considerations were important in deciding which to lean on.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46435,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Humanities\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Humanities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2023-012667\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Humanities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2023-012667","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

功能-器官区分试图将具有可诊断的生物原因的疾病与没有生物原因的疾病区分开来,并且是组织诊断、医学专业和服务的中轴线。先前的研究报告了临床医生之间关于术语的含义和它们适用的条件的不一致,以及注意到相关诊断的价值负载含义。因此,我们旨在了解在精神病学和神经病学服务中工作的临床医生如何在他们的工作中导航功能-器官的区别。20名从事精神病学和神经病学服务的临床医生(10名内科医生,10名心理学家)参加了半结构化访谈,应用建构主义理论方法对访谈进行了分析。这种区别通常被描述为与临床医生如何概念化患者的问题不一致。有机因素被认为是客观的,明确可识别的和明确的原因,而功能原因是无形的,通过思考和对话来假设。背景因素——包括文化假设、服务需求、患者需求和同事观点——是在实践中如何区分的关键。这种区别在理论上被认为不令人满意,最终被取代,但临床决策需要有策略地使用它。这些用途包括帮助沟通医疗问题,导航服务,通过使心理解释更容易接受来隐藏意义,解决耻辱,给予希望,以及获得疾病身份。临床医生将个人和社会层面的道德问题作为概念基础和功能-有机区分部署的一部分,并将积极引导这些作为他们工作的一部分。功能-有机区分的地位是一个健全的理论概念,可在各种条件下推广,其作用是医疗保健结构中的把关工具,两者之间存在相当大的距离。在实际部署时,模糊性和矛盾性被认为既是障碍也是益处,在决定依靠哪一方时,战略考虑是重要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Meaning and role of functional-organic distinction: a study of clinicians in psychiatry and neurology services.

The functional-organic distinction attempts to differentiate disorders with diagnosable biological causes from those without and is a central axis on which diagnoses, medical specialities and services are organised. Previous studies report poor agreement between clinicians regarding the meanings of the terms and the conditions to which they apply, as well as noting value-laden implications of relevant diagnoses. Consequently, we aimed to understand how clinicians working in psychiatry and neurology services navigate the functional-organic distinction in their work. Twenty clinicians (10 physicians, 10 psychologists) working in psychiatry and neurology services participated in semistructured interviews that were analysed applying a constructivist grounded theory approach. The distinction was described as often incongruent with how clinicians conceptualise patients' problems. Organic factors were considered to be objective, unambiguously identifiable and clearly causative, whereas functional causes were invisible and to be hypothesised through thinking and conversation. Contextual factors-including cultural assumptions, service demands, patient needs and colleagues' views-were key in how the distinction was deployed in practice. The distinction was considered theoretically unsatisfactory, eventually to be superseded, but clinical decision making required it to be used strategically. These uses included helping communicate medical problems, navigating services, hiding meaning by making psychological explanations more palatable, tackling stigma, giving hope, and giving access to illness identity. Clinicians cited moral issues at both individual and societal levels as integral to the conceptual basis and deployment of the functional-organic distinction and described actively navigating these as part of their work. There was a considerable distance between the status of the functional-organic distinction as a sound theoretical concept generalisable across conditions and its role as a gatekeeping tool within the structures of healthcare. Ambiguity and contradictions were considered as both obstacles and benefits when deployed in practice and strategic considerations were important in deciding which to lean on.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Humanities
Medical Humanities HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
8.30%
发文量
59
期刊介绍: Occupational and Environmental Medicine (OEM) is an international peer reviewed journal concerned with areas of current importance in occupational medicine and environmental health issues throughout the world. Original contributions include epidemiological, physiological and psychological studies of occupational and environmental health hazards as well as toxicological studies of materials posing human health risks. A CPD/CME series aims to help visitors in continuing their professional development. A World at Work series describes workplace hazards and protetctive measures in different workplaces worldwide. A correspondence section provides a forum for debate and notification of preliminary findings.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信