IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v73y2011i6p808-815.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk, significance and biomedicalisation of a new population: Older women's experience of osteoporosis screening

Author

Listed:
  • Salter, Charlotte Ingrid
  • Howe, Amanda
  • McDaid, Lisa
  • Blacklock, Jeanette
  • Lenaghan, Elizabeth
  • Shepstone, Lee

Abstract

This article explores the illness experience associated with being diagnosed at risk of a long term chronic condition and discusses the implications of an emergent form of predictive medicine. We report on findings from a study involving 30 older women between the ages of 73-85 years of age recently screened for osteoporosis and informed that they are at a higher than average risk of breaking a bone in the next 10 years, but not formally diagnosed with osteoporosis. Data were gathered by the Adherence to Osteoporosis Medicine (ATOM) study using in-depth interviews with women in their own homes in Norfolk & Suffolk, UK in 2009-2010. We analyse and discuss the significance participants give to their new fracture risk status and consider the practical, physical and existential consequences of this 'diagnosis'. The findings are discussed under three broad themes: Predictive technology, meaning and the risk-of-illness experience; knowledge, understanding and the embodiment of fracture risk status; and, social implications of biomedicine for an ageing population. We argue that screening for osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk can be understood as a process of biomedicalisation of ageing and bone health. This article offers insight into the meaning of risk status as an illness experience for older women. We conclude by discussing how biomedicalisation of a new population through diagnosis of fracture risk status has significance and consequence at both the individual and the societal level expanding the population of older women labelled at risk and increasing demand for biomedical tests and prescribed medication for the prevention of disease.

Suggested Citation

  • Salter, Charlotte Ingrid & Howe, Amanda & McDaid, Lisa & Blacklock, Jeanette & Lenaghan, Elizabeth & Shepstone, Lee, 2011. "Risk, significance and biomedicalisation of a new population: Older women's experience of osteoporosis screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(6), pages 808-815, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:73:y:2011:i:6:p:808-815
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953611003881
    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. Kavanagh, Anne M. & Broom, Dorothy H., 1998. "Embodied risk: My body, myself?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 437-444, February.
    2. Scott, S. & Prior, L. & Wood, F. & Gray, J., 2005. "Repositioning the patient: the implications of being 'at risk'," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(8), pages 1869-1879, April.
    3. Reventlow, Susanne Dalsgaard & Hvas, Lotte & Malterud, Kirsti, 2006. "Making the invisible body visible. Bone scans, osteoporosis and women's bodily experiences," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(11), pages 2720-2731, June.
    4. Hunter, Myra S. & O'Dea, Irene & Britten, Nicky, 1997. "Decision-making and hormone replacement therapy: A qualitative analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 1541-1548, November.
    5. Griffiths, Frances, 1999. "Women's control and choice regarding HRT," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 469-482, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Werner-Lin, Allison & Forbes Shepherd, Rowan & Young, Jennifer L. & Wilsnack, Catherine & Merrill, Shana L. & Greene, Mark H. & Khincha, Payal P., 2022. "Embodied risk for families with Li-Fraumeni syndrome: Like electricity through my body," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 301(C).
    2. Fishman, Jennifer R. & Flatt, Michael A. & Settersten, Richard A., 2015. "Bioidentical hormones, menopausal women, and the lure of the “natural” in U.S. anti-aging medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 79-87.
    3. Erol, Maral, 2011. "Melting bones: The social construction of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Turkey," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(10), pages 1490-1497.
    4. Reventlow, Susanne Dalsgaard & Hvas, Lotte & Malterud, Kirsti, 2006. "Making the invisible body visible. Bone scans, osteoporosis and women's bodily experiences," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(11), pages 2720-2731, June.
    5. Greco, Cinzia, 2015. "The Poly Implant Prothèse breast prostheses scandal: Embodied risk and social suffering," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 150-157.
    6. Skolbekken, John-Arne & Østerlie, Wenche & Forsmo, Siri, 2008. "Brittle bones, pain and fractures - Lay constructions of osteoporosis among Norwegian women attending the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(12), pages 2562-2572, June.
    7. Gunson, Jessica Shipman, 2010. ""More natural but less normal": Reconsidering medicalisation and agency through women's accounts of menstrual suppression," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(7), pages 1324-1331, October.
    8. Eileen Green & Frances Griffiths & Di Thompson, 2006. "‘Are My Bones Normal Doctor?’ the Role of Technology in Understanding and Communicating Health Risks for Midlife Women," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 11(4), pages 1-16, December.
    9. Griffiths, F. & Green, E. & Bendelow, G., 2006. "Health professionals, their medical interventions and uncertainty: A study focusing on women at midlife," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(5), pages 1078-1090, March.
    10. Jae-Mahn Shim, 2022. "Patient Agency: Manifestations of Individual Agency Among People With Health Problems," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(1), pages 21582440221, March.
    11. Caiata-Zufferey, Maria, 2015. "Genetically at-risk status and individual agency. A qualitative study on asymptomatic women living with genetic risk of breast/ovarian cancer," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 141-148.
    12. Will, Catherine M. & Armstrong, David & Marteau, Theresa M., 2010. "Genetic unexceptionalism: Clinician accounts of genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolaemia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(5), pages 910-917, September.
    13. Paul Stenner & Raffaele De Luca Picione, 2023. "A Theoretically Informed Critical Review of Research Applying the Concept of Liminality to Understand Experiences with Cancer: Implications for a New Oncological Agenda in Health Psychology," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(11), pages 1-21, May.
    14. 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).
    15. Blomberg, Karin & Forss, Anette & Ternestedt, Britt-Marie & Tishelman, Carol, 2009. "From 'silent' to 'heard': Professional mediation, manipulation and women's experiences of their body after an abnormal Pap smear," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 479-486, February.
    16. Beatrice I. J. M. Van der Heijden & Karen Pak & Mónica Santana, 2021. "Menopause and Sustainable Career Outcomes: A Science Mapping Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-21, November.
    17. Sheila Twinn, 2006. "Balancing uncertainty and acceptance: understanding Chinese women's responses to an abnormal cervical smear result," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(9), pages 1140-1148, September.
    18. Bertotti, Andrea M. & Mann, Emily S. & Miner, Skye A., 2021. "Efficacy as safety: Dominant cultural assumptions and the assessment of contraceptive risk," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 270(C).
    19. Sillence, Elizabeth & Briggs, Pam & Harris, Peter Richard & Fishwick, Lesley, 2007. "How do patients evaluate and make use of online health information?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(9), pages 1853-1862, May.
    20. Sutton, E. & Martin, G. & Eborall, H. & Tarrant, C., 2023. "Undertaking risk and relational work to manage vulnerability: Acute medical patients’ involvement in patient safety in the NHS," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 320(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:73:y:2011:i:6:p:808-815. 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.