Coronary artery disease and the contours of pharmaceuticalization

Looking Beyond the Lamp Post: Health Inequality in the Times of COVID-19

In times of a pandemic, the world lives in the throes of colossal economic and public health crises. The world seems unprepared and ill-equipped to cater to the catastrophic pandemic of COVID-19. The apocalyptic infectious diseases keep revisiting to expose the global widening economic and health inequalities. This review in its different sections argues that with the "financialization of everything," a new consciousness comprising a more general heightened sense of awareness and interest in personal health and well-being pervades whereby citizens become customers. This effectively forefends the dynamics of interaction between the individual and her/his environment with its consequent impact on health and promotes an individuated risk and responsibility. Even in times of a pandemic, draconian state surveillance, lockdown, behavior modification, self-help, and self-care have emerged as guiding principles of public health. There is an urgent need for a radical reordering of the world order beyond the hegemonic, neoliberal, capitalistic ethos of rabid consumerism and unconstrained private profit.

The Disparate Approaches of General Practitioners to the Pharmaceuticalisation of Cardiovascular Disease Prevention

In the context of current clinical practice guidance, this paper will analyse the role of GPs in decision-making about the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) using the concept of pharmaceuticalisation. Drawing on thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 20 GPs, the paper argues that the way GPs approach CVD pharmaceuticalisation is shaped by their understandings of and use of guidelines (and the knowledge they embody), existing treatment perspectives and the moral qualities of preventative treatment, and professional evaluations of 'relevant' information. The analysis indicates that there exist disparate and distinct approaches to and understandings of CVD pharmaceuticalisation amongst GPs. Depending on how knowledge, treatment perspectives and values variously combine, GPs sit somewhere on a spectrum of how pharmaceuticalised they are in terms of the approaches to and understandings of the prevention of CVD.

A qualitative exploration of the prescribing and use of statins in asymptomatic people in Ireland: A case of medicalisation, biomedicalisation and pharmaceuticalisation

There has been a notable increase in the use of statins in people without cardiovascular disease but who may be at risk in the future. The majority of statin users now fall into this category but little research has focused exclusively on this group. Debate has ensued regarding medicating asymptomatic people, and processes described variously as medicalisation, biomedicalisation and pharmaceuticalisation are used to explain how this happens. These overlapping and interrelated processes require issues to be 'problemised' as medical problems requiring medical solutions given the prevailing understandings of health, risk and disease. However, current understandings of risk and disease are not simply the result of technological and scientific advances, they are also socially constructed. We interviewed members of the public, GPs and others, and found that rather than high cholesterol being seen as one of several risk factors that contributes to heart disease, it tended to be promoted simplistically to the status of a disease needing treatment of itself. Statins were justified by those taking them as different to 'unnecessary medicines'. However, some participants demonstrated resistance to statins, worried about over-medicalisation and deviated from accepted practices, indicating a complex 'muddling through' in the face of uncertainty.

Revisiting the pharmaceuticalisation of pandemic influenza using Lukes' framework of power

The power of social actors to drive or block pharmaceutical uptake has been a concern in sociological debates on pharmaceuticalisation, including in the case of pandemic vaccination. We build on Steven Lukes' three-dimensional view of power to explore the 2009 H1N1 pandemic vaccination in Sweden and Denmark - two similar countries that arrived at conflicting vaccination strategies. Drawing on interviews with members of each country's pandemic steering group and on document analysis, we explore three consecutive stages of pandemic vaccination response: planning, vaccine procurement and the vaccination campaign. The paper makes two contributions to studies of pharmaceuticalisation and pandemics. Conceptually, we advocate the suitability of Lukes' framework over the 'countervailing powers' framework repeatedly used to model power in the pharmaceutical field. Empirically, our study confirms that government-appointed experts steered pandemic planning in both countries, but we show that the state, industry and the WHO also exerted power by enabling and constraining experts' decision-making, including by keeping some information secret. Furthermore, we argue that mass vaccination in Sweden was a pervasive expression of state power, in Lukes' sense, since it rested on keeping latent the tension between many individuals' health interests and the state's interests in protecting social and economic functioning.

Beyond unequal access: Acculturation, race, and resistance to pharmaceuticalization in the United States

Trends toward pharmaceuticalization in Western countries have led to increased research and theorizing about the roles macro-level institutions, structures, and collective actors play in contributing to patients' reliance on prescription drugs. Relatively less work has focused on the degree to which patients resist pharmaceuticalization pressures, and even less research has explored the factors contributing to patients' resistance to pharmaceuticalization. Drawing on focus groups with patients who had been recently prescribed a prescription drug, this paper investigates how marginalization in the mainstream US society, as measured by acculturation and race, contributes to differences in patients' subjective experiences and responses to prescription drugs. We find that racial minorities report a greater skepticism of prescription drugs compared to whites and express that they turn to prescription drugs as a last resort. While highly acculturated participants rarely discuss alternatives to prescription drugs, less acculturated racial minorities indicate a preference for complementary and alternative remedies. We draw on the literatures on the pharmaceuticalization of society and the social nature of medicine to examine the role marginalization plays in patients' views of prescription drugs. Public health research conceives of racial minorities' lower rates of prescription drug usage compared to whites as primarily a problem of lack of access. Our results suggest another piece to the puzzle: minorities resist pharmaceuticalization pressures to express their cultural and racial identities.