IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v72y2011i8p1351-1358.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dead by 50: Lay expertise and breast cancer screening

Author

Listed:
  • Barker, Kristin K.
  • Galardi, Tasha R.

Abstract

This paper examines the reactions of women with breast cancer to the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for mammography screening. Specifically, it analyzes electronic postings about the Task Force's recommendations from five breast cancer discussion boards between November 17, 2009 and December 17, 2009. Women's opposition to the recommendations is best understood as a clash between scientific and lay expertise concerning the priorities of medicine and notions of evidentiary significance. We highlight the connective logic - or connectivity - that underlies lay expertise in the electronic era. Connectivity is a unique way of knowing that emerges from an experiential connection to illness and a virtual connection to others with the same illness. Connectivity is based on forms of evidence that enhance the moral authority of lay claims for medical succor. Connectivity is a potent element in contemporary lay challenges to scientific expertise and will become increasingly influential as online illness affiliation becomes ever more commonplace.

Suggested Citation

  • Barker, Kristin K. & Galardi, Tasha R., 2011. "Dead by 50: Lay expertise and breast cancer screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(8), pages 1351-1358, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:72:y:2011:i:8:p:1351-1358
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(11)00111-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lantz, Paula M. & Booth, Karen M., 1998. "The social construction of the breast cancer epidemic," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 907-918, April.
    2. Casiday, Rachel Elizabeth, 2007. "Children's health and the social theory of risk: Insights from the British measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) controversy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(5), pages 1059-1070, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Solbjør, Marit & Skolbekken, John-Arne & Sætnan, Ann Rudinow & Hagen, Anne Irene & Forsmo, Siri, 2012. "Mammography screening and trust: The case of interval breast cancer," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(10), pages 1746-1752.
    2. Gaspar, Mark & Rosenes, Ron & Burchell, Ann N. & Grennan, Troy & Salit, Irving & Grace, Daniel, 2020. "Diagnosing uncertainty: The challenges of implementing medical screening programs for minority sub-populations in Canada," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 244(C).
    3. Rueger, Jasmina & Dolfsma, Wilfred & Aalbers, Rick, 2021. "Perception of peer advice in online health communities: Access to lay expertise," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 277(C).
    4. Foster, Drew, 2016. "‘Keep complaining til someone listens’: Exchanges of tacit healthcare knowledge in online illness communities," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 25-32.
    5. David Schleifer & David J Rothman, 2012. "“The Ultimate Decision Is Yours”: Exploring Patients’ Attitudes about the Overuse of Medical Interventions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-6, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Manca, Terra, 2018. "Fear, rationality, and risky others: A qualitative analysis of physicians' and nurses' accounts of popular vaccine narratives," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 119-125.
    2. Skea, Zoë C. & Entwistle, Vikki A. & Watt, Ian & Russell, Elizabeth, 2008. "'Avoiding harm to others' considerations in relation to parental measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination discussions - An analysis of an online chat forum," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(9), pages 1382-1390, November.
    3. Barg, Frances K. & Grier, Sonya A., 2008. "Enhancing breast cancer communications: A cultural models approach," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 335-342.
    4. Jean Adams & Rebekah J McNaughton & Sarah Wigham & Darren Flynn & Laura Ternent & Janet Shucksmith, 2016. "Acceptability of Parental Financial Incentives and Quasi-Mandatory Interventions for Preschool Vaccinations: Triangulation of Findings from Three Linked Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-14, June.
    5. Murray G Brown & Mark Asbridge & Vern Hicks & Sarah Kirby & Thomas J Murray & Pantelis Andreou & Dong Lin, 2014. "Estimating Typical Multiple Sclerosis Disability Progression Speed from Clinical Observations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-10, October.
    6. Radin, Patricia, 2006. ""To me, it's my life": Medical communication, trust, and activism in cyberspace," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 591-601, February.
    7. Hernandez, Elaine M. & Calarco, Jessica McCrory, 2021. "Health decisions amidst controversy: Prenatal alcohol consumption and the unequal experience of influence and control in networks," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 286(C).
    8. Cabral, Christie & Lucas, Patricia J. & Ingram, Jenny & Hay, Alastair D. & Horwood, Jeremy, 2015. "“It's safer to …” parent consulting and clinician antibiotic prescribing decisions for children with respiratory tract infections: An analysis across four qualitative studies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 136, pages 156-164.
    9. Mayer, Brian, 2012. "‘Relax and take a deep breath’: Print media coverage of asthma and air pollution in the United States," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(5), pages 892-900.
    10. Clarke, Juanne N. & Everest, Michelle M., 2006. "Cancer in the mass print media: Fear, uncertainty and the medical model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(10), pages 2591-2600, May.
    11. Reich, Jennifer A., 2016. "Of natural bodies and antibodies: Parents' vaccine refusal and the dichotomies of natural and artificial," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 103-110.
    12. P. Kriwy, 2012. "Similarity of parents and physicians in the decision to vaccinate children against measles, mumps and rubella," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 57(2), pages 333-340, April.
    13. Gemma Lasseter & Hareth Al-Janabi & Caroline L Trotter & Fran E Carroll & Hannah Christensen, 2018. "The views of the general public on prioritising vaccination programmes against childhood diseases: A qualitative study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-18, June.
    14. Gollust, Sarah E. & Lantz, Paula M., 2009. "Communicating population health: Print news media coverage of type 2 diabetes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1091-1098, October.
    15. Waggoner, Miranda R., 2013. "Parsing the peanut panic: The social life of a contested food allergy epidemic," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 49-55.
    16. Hannigan, Ben & Coffey, Michael, 2011. "Where the wicked problems are: The case of mental health," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(3), pages 220-227, August.
    17. Geelen, Els & van Vliet, Hans & de Hoogh, Pieter & Horstman, Klasien, 2016. "Taming the fear of voice: Dilemmas in maintaining a high vaccination rate in the Netherlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 12-19.
    18. Kasstan, Ben, 2021. "“If a rabbi did say ‘you have to vaccinate,’ we wouldn't”: Unveiling the secular logics of religious exemption and opposition to vaccination," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 280(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:72:y:2011:i:8:p:1351-1358. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.