'X-rays don't tell lies': the Medical Research Council and the measurement of respiratory disability, 1936-1945

Physiology and Biomarkers for Surveillance of Occupational Lung Disease

Respiratory surveillance is the process whereby a group of exposed workers are regularly tested (or screened) for those lung diseases which occur as a result of a specific work exposure. Surveillance is performed by assessing various measures of biological or pathological processes (or biomarkers) for change over time. These traditionally include questionnaires, lung physiological assessments (especially spirometry), and imaging. Early detection of pathological processes or disease can enable removal of a worker from a potentially harmful exposure at an early stage. In this article, we summarize the physiological biomarkers currently used for respiratory surveillance, while commenting on differences in interpretative strategies between different professional groups. We also briefly review the many new techniques which are currently being assessed for respiratory surveillance in prospective research studies and which are likely to significantly broaden and enhance this field in the near future.

'The body says it': the difficulty of measuring and communicating sensations of breathlessness

Breathlessness is a sensation affecting those living with chronic respiratory disease, obesity, heart disease and anxiety disorders. The Multidimensional Dyspnoea Profile is a respiratory questionnaire which attempts to measure the incommunicable different sensory qualities (and emotional responses) of breathlessness. Drawing on sensorial anthropology we take as our object of study the process of turning sensations into symptoms. We consider how shared cultural templates of 'what counts as a symptom' evolve, mediate and feed into the process of bodily sensations becoming a symptom. Our contribution to the field of sensorial anthropology, as an interdisciplinary collaboration between history, anthropology and the medical humanities, is to provide a critique of how biomedicine and cultures of clinical research have measured the multidimensional sensorial aspects of breathlessness. Using cognitive interviews of respiratory questionnaires with participants from the Breathe Easy groups in the UK, we give examples of how the wording used to describe sensations is often at odds with the language those living with breathlessness understand or use. They struggle to comprehend and map their bodily experience of sensations associated with breathlessness to the words on the respiratory questionnaire. We reflect on the alignment between cognitive interviewing as a method and anthropology as a disciplinary approach. We argue biomedicine brings with it a set of cultural assumptions about what it means to measure (and know) the sensorial breathless body in the context of the respiratory clinic (clinical research). We suggest the mismatch between the descriptions (and confusion) of those responding to the respiratory questionnaire items and those selecting the vocabularies in designing it may be symptomatic of a type of historical testimonial epistemic injustice, founded on the prioritisation of clinical expertise over expertise by experience.

Addressing Race in Pulmonary Function Testing by Aligning Intent and Evidence With Practice and Perception

The practice of using race or ethnicity in medicine to explain differences between individuals is being called into question because it may contribute to biased medical care and research that perpetuates health disparities and structural racism. A commonly cited example is the use of race or ethnicity in the interpretation of pulmonary function test (PFT) results, yet the perspectives of practicing pulmonologists and physiologists are missing from this discussion. This discussion has global relevance for increasingly multicultural communities in which the range of values that represent normal lung function is uncertain. We review the underlying sources of differences in lung function, including those that may be captured by race or ethnicity, and demonstrate how the current practice of PFT measurement and interpretation is imperfect in its ability to describe accurately the relationship between function and health outcomes. We summarize the arguments against using race-specific equations as well as address concerns about removing race from the interpretation of PFT results. Further, we outline knowledge gaps and critical questions that need to be answered to change the current approach of including race or ethnicity in PFT results interpretation thoughtfully. Finally, we propose changes in interpretation strategies and future research to reduce health disparities.