Search

Abstract Changes in the nature and structure of healthcare pathways have implications for healthcare professionals' jurisdictional boundaries. The introduction of treatment focused BRCA1 and 2 genetic testing (TFGT) for newly diagnosed patients with breast cancer offers a contemporary example of pathway change brought about by technological advancements in gene testing and clinical evidence, and reflects the cultural shift towards genomics. Forming part of an ethnographically informed study of patient and practitioner experiences of TFGT at a UK teaching hospital, this paper focuses on the impact of a proposal to pilot a mainstreamed TFGT pathway on healthcare professionals' negotiations of professional jurisdiction. Based upon semi-structured interviews (n = 19) with breast surgeons, medical oncologists and members of the genetics team, alongside observations of breast multidisciplinary team meetings, during the time leading up to the implementation of the pilot, we describe how clinicians responded to the anticipated changes associated with mainstreaming. Interviews suggest that mainstreaming the breast cancer pathway, and the associated jurisdictional reconfigurations, had advocates as well as detractors. Medical oncologists championed the plans, viewing this adaptation in care provision and their professional role as a logical next step. Breast surgeons, however, regarded mainstreaming as an unfeasible expansion of their workload and questioned the relevance of TFGT to their clinical practice. The genetics team, who introduced the pilot, appeared cautiously optimistic about the potential changes. Drawing on sociological understandings of the negotiation of professional jurisdictions our work contributes a timely, micro-level examination of the responses among clinicians as they worked to renegotiate professional boundaries in response to the innovative application of treatment-focused BRCA testing in cancer care – a local and dynamic process which we refer to as an 'oncogenetic taskscape in the making'. Highlights • A micro-level examination of clinicians' work assembling an 'oncogenetic taskscape'. • Mainstreaming genomic testing requires changes to professional jurisdictions. • Technology's clinical relevance informs clinicians' acceptance of mainstreaming. • Clinical implementation of new technology requires inter-professional collaboration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The embodiment of health identities is a growing area of interest. Questions posed in this literature include: how important is the body in our understandings/experiences of health, how are everyday definitions of health and self embodied despite chronic illness, and how do social relations influence these interpretations? Mindful of such questions, this paper draws on a qualitative study of mild to moderate asthma among young people in Ireland. In-depth interviews were undertaken with 31 respondents aged between 5 and 17, including boys ( n = 15) and girls ( n = 16) from different class and ethnic backgrounds. Core themes included: the importance of play, physical activity and sport; diet/nutrition; and physical appearance. Asthma sometimes presented challenges in relation to specific domains, notably strenuous physical activity, though in many other respects its potential impact was discursively minimised. Attentive to various modalities of the lived body, we illustrate how health identities are negotiated among young people diagnosed with a chronic illness. Connections are also made with the sociology of childhood and (ill) health, which views young people as active agents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Medicalization is a central topic of concern in the sociology of disability and of health and illness. In this paper, I examine how medicalization is inequitably applied and circulates in the context of schools, specifically in serving students with educational disabilities. My aim is to advance understandings of medicalization through this case. Using a mixed-methods design, I first show, descriptively, how race and gender intersectionally predict educational disability status in a dataset of all Wisconsin public school students. Next, I examine how racial and gender disparities in disability status are produced at the micro level, using interviews with 27 Wisconsin teachers, including in-depth discussions of 73 individual students that were struggling academically or behaviorally. My quantitative findings show variation by race, gender, and disability category: White children have higher probability of special education receipt than comparable children of color for academic difficulties, but lower probability for behavioral difficulties, and girls have lower probability than comparable boys overall. My interview data suggest that these disparate outcomes reflect stratified medicalization processes, in which institutional constraints, status beliefs, and cultural discourses of race and gender shape both stratified noticing of schooling difficulties and stratified interpretation of those difficulties as medicalized conditions. • White children and boys are more likely than comparable peers to receive special education for higher-status disabilities. • Children of color and boys are more likely than comparable peers to receive special education for lower-status disabilities. • These inequalities are explained by stratified definitional processes of medicalization by teachers. • Institutional constraints and cultural discourses of race and gender shape stratified medicalization processes. • These processes include stratified noticing and stratified interpretation of students' difficulties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]