IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v200y2018icp107-113.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Political economy of hope as a cultural facet of biomedicalization: A qualitative examination of constraints to hospice utilization among U.S. end-stage cancer patients

Author

Listed:
  • Mrig, Emily Hammad
  • Spencer, Karen Lutfey

Abstract

A growing body of social science literature is devoted to describing processes of biomedicalization. The issue of biomedicalization is especially relevant for individuals suffering from end-stage cancer and hoping that aggressive end-of-life interventions, which are riddled with uncertainty around quantity or quality of life, will produce a ‘cure’. To examine hospice underutilization among end-stage cancer patients, we apply the anthropological concept ‘political economy of hope,’ which describes how personal and collective ‘hope’ is associated with the political and economic structures that produce biomedicalization processes. Previous studies have examined hospice underutilization among end-stage cancer patients and have identified barriers stemming from patient and physician characteristics or health insurance reimbursement policies. Yet, these studies do not provide an organized synthesis of how barriers articulate, how they are part of the longitudinal decision-making process, or describe the sociocultural context surrounding hospice care enrollment decisions. This paper focuses on US-specific mechanisms and is based on qualitative, in-depth, interviews with physicians at an academic hospital (N = 24). We find that hospice underutilization results from a web of interconnected constraints surrounding end-stage cancer patients. Our research reveals how hospice care contradicts the political and economic structures associated with end-stage cancer care and illustrates how end-stage cancer patients are transformed into a form of biovalue, a fundamental commodity sustaining the political economy of hope.

Suggested Citation

  • Mrig, Emily Hammad & Spencer, Karen Lutfey, 2018. "Political economy of hope as a cultural facet of biomedicalization: A qualitative examination of constraints to hospice utilization among U.S. end-stage cancer patients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 107-113.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:200:y:2018:i:c:p:107-113
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.01.033
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953618300339
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.01.033?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Kaiser, Karen, 2008. "The meaning of the survivor identity for women with breast cancer," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 79-87, July.
    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. Tate, Alexandra, 2022. "Death and the treatment imperative: Decision-making in late-stage cancer," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 306(C).
    2. Hauge, Amalie M., 2020. "One last round of chemo? Insights from conversations between oncologists and lung cancer patients about prognosis and treatment decisions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    3. Tate, Alexandra, 2020. "Invoking death: How oncologists discuss a deadly outcome," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).

    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. Quincey, Kerry & Williamson, Iain & Winstanley, Sue, 2016. "‘Marginalised malignancies’: A qualitative synthesis of men's accounts of living with breast cancer," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 17-25.
    2. Smit, Anri & Coetzee, Bronwynè Jo’sean & Roomaney, Rizwana & Bradshaw, Melissa & Swartz, Leslie, 2019. "Women's stories of living with breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative evidence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 231-245.
    3. Granek, Leeat & Fergus, Karen, 2012. "Resistance, agency, and liminality in women's accounts of symptom appraisal and help-seeking upon discovery of a breast irregularity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(10), pages 1753-1761.
    4. Bell, Kirsten, 2014. "The breast-cancer-ization of cancer survivorship: Implications for experiences of the disease," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 56-63.
    5. Lowton, Karen & Hiley, Chris & Higgs, Paul, 2017. "Constructing embodied identity in a ‘new’ ageing population: A qualitative study of the pioneer cohort of childhood liver transplant recipients in the UK," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 1-9.
    6. Jae-Mahn Shim, 2022. "Patient Agency: Manifestations of Individual Agency Among People With Health Problems," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(1), pages 21582440221, March.
    7. Dyer, Karen E., 2015. "“Surviving is not the same as living”: Cancer and Sobrevivencia in Puerto Rico," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 20-29.
    8. Pudrovska, Tetyana, 2010. "Cancer and mastery: Do age and cohort matter?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(7), pages 1285-1291, October.
    9. Lisa McCann & Nicola Illingworth & Yvonne Wengström & Gill Hubbard & Nora Kearney, 2010. "Transitional experiences of women with breast cancer within the first year following diagnosis," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(13‐14), pages 1969-1976, July.

    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:200:y:2018:i:c:p:107-113. 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.