Abstract
This study was designed to investigate the impact of medical terminology on perceptions of disease. Specifically, we look at the changing public perceptions of newly medicalized disorders with accompanying newly medicalized terms (e.g. impotence has become erectile dysfunction disorder). Does using “medicalese” to label a recently medicalized disorder lead to a change in the perception of that condition? Undergraduate students (n = 52) rated either the medical or lay label for recently medicalized disorders (such as erectile dysfunction disorder vs. impotence) and established medical conditions (such as a myocardial infarction vs. heart attack) for their perceived seriousness, disease representativeness and prevalence. Students considered the medical label of the recently medicalized disease to be more serious (mean = 4.95 (SE = .27) vs. mean = 3.77 (SE = .24) on a ten point scale), more representative of a disease (mean = 2.47 (SE = .09) vs. mean = 1.83 (SE = .09) on a four point scale), and have lower prevalence (mean = 68 (SE = 12.6) vs. mean = 122 (SE = 18.1) out of 1,000) than the same disease described using common language. A similar pattern was not seen in the established medical conditions, even when controlled for severity. This study demonstrates that the use of medical language in communication can induce bias in perception; a simple switch in terminology results in a disease being perceived as more serious, more likely to be a disease, and more likely to be a rare condition. These findings regarding the conceptualization of disease have implications for many areas, including medical communication with the public, advertising, and public policy.
Highlights
Some medical terminology is a direct derivative of Latin or Greek-like equivalents; others are English-based, but are still in a formal/technical register that has connotations of special medical status (e.g. Erectile Dysfunction Disorder)
This study demonstrates that a medical label for a recently medicalized disorder results in perceptions of increased severity, increased disease representativeness and lower prevalence compared to the same disorder presented in its synonymous, lay label
If any observations are to be made regarding the established medical conditions, it is that the lay label is seen as more serious than the medicalese, indicating a pattern opposite to that previously seen in the literature [19]
Summary
The definition of disease and ‘non-disease’ has led to a heated debate in the literature [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10], with much of the rhetoric focused around the ‘medicalization’ of syndromes and disorders on the fringes of the classic definition of disease [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,11,12,13]. The use of medical terms to describe such disorders as male pattern baldness (androgenic alopecia), chronic fatigue syndrome (myalgic encephalopathy), and impotence (erectile dysfunction disorder), to mention a few [14], appear to coincide with a trend towards the ‘‘medicalization’’ of society This trend has been addressed in domains stretching from philosophy [3,5,15], to health policy and expenditures [4], to the cultural status of disease [10], to the impact on patient and health care worker views of illness [2,6,7,15], and has lead to much debate regarding the role of advertising in disease mongering [12,13,16,17,18]. We predict that recognized medical conditions will be considered to have equal disease status, be serious, and be prevalent regardless of the label used to identify the disorder
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
