Does anyone have definitions of what each of these concepts mean? The answer choice only seems to explain the "Life course approach to health," and I wasn't really able to find much on the others aside from research publications and scholarly articles.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Section Bank P/S #35
- Thread starter sanguinee
- Start date
Great question! So the key here is to realize that the P/S section tends to just use a lot of common sense terms to define sociological/psychological concepts (sociological more so than sociological). So let's start with the first one - medicalization of illness. This one actually isn't used much in this context, because to medicalize something means to take a phenomenon that was not a medical one before and to bring it into the realm of biomedicine. So for example, one could argue that obesity was not considered an illness fifty years ago. However, now, we have medicalized it as an illness that can be inherited to an extent. The same with alcoholism and addiction. You can also have de-medicalization - so something like the DSM-V removing homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder.
The life course approach to health is exactly what it sounds like - viewing health in terms of the patient's entire life history. It's a holistic approach that considers many more factors than ones directly incidental to the illness at hand.
The socioeconomic gradient in health refers to a socioeconomic disparity in healthcare. Those at the top of the socioeconomic pyramid tend to have better health outcomes overall simply because they have access to better hospitals, better providers, better health options, and end up with better health overall. For example, think of a low-income family. They're struggling to make ends meet. They're not going to be able to purchase healthy alternatives like organic foods. There might not even be a grocery store that sells organic foods near their residence! And even if they wanted to eat healthy, eating healthy is expensive. So they'll likely resort to cheap fast food options. Now consider someone considerably wealthier. They have more money, so they have more alternatives available to them. They have gym membership and probably access to various health clubs. When they get sick, they go to a private hospital. All of these factors create a gradient in healthcare that is biased towards better health outcomes for those most well off.
Finally, the social construction of illness takes roots in social constructionist theory. That theory holds that social institutions and ideas and overall societal understanding of the world is forged through a collective process that imbibes that understanding with the values of the people within that society. So for example, I'll use the example of family. In the U.S., the institution of family is inherently small and mobile. Children grow up, go to college, and move out of the house. They get jobs and become independent from their families. A social constructionist would say that the concept of family in the U.S. is socially constructed - that is, because we are an individualistic society, those values contribute to how we understand family, namely as a loose unit that facilitates independence. So the parents send the children off to college so that the latter can become independent and grow into their own. In contrast, family in China and in Eastern cultures is very different. Children usually end up living very close to, if not with, their parents until their parents' old age. There exists a concept of a family or ancestral home that is passed down, generation after generation. Children are expected to take care of their parents in their old age and to place family matters before individual goals. A social constructionist would say that the Eastern understanding of family is socially constructed and is imbibed with the values of a collectivist culture.
The life course approach to health is exactly what it sounds like - viewing health in terms of the patient's entire life history. It's a holistic approach that considers many more factors than ones directly incidental to the illness at hand.
The socioeconomic gradient in health refers to a socioeconomic disparity in healthcare. Those at the top of the socioeconomic pyramid tend to have better health outcomes overall simply because they have access to better hospitals, better providers, better health options, and end up with better health overall. For example, think of a low-income family. They're struggling to make ends meet. They're not going to be able to purchase healthy alternatives like organic foods. There might not even be a grocery store that sells organic foods near their residence! And even if they wanted to eat healthy, eating healthy is expensive. So they'll likely resort to cheap fast food options. Now consider someone considerably wealthier. They have more money, so they have more alternatives available to them. They have gym membership and probably access to various health clubs. When they get sick, they go to a private hospital. All of these factors create a gradient in healthcare that is biased towards better health outcomes for those most well off.
Finally, the social construction of illness takes roots in social constructionist theory. That theory holds that social institutions and ideas and overall societal understanding of the world is forged through a collective process that imbibes that understanding with the values of the people within that society. So for example, I'll use the example of family. In the U.S., the institution of family is inherently small and mobile. Children grow up, go to college, and move out of the house. They get jobs and become independent from their families. A social constructionist would say that the concept of family in the U.S. is socially constructed - that is, because we are an individualistic society, those values contribute to how we understand family, namely as a loose unit that facilitates independence. So the parents send the children off to college so that the latter can become independent and grow into their own. In contrast, family in China and in Eastern cultures is very different. Children usually end up living very close to, if not with, their parents until their parents' old age. There exists a concept of a family or ancestral home that is passed down, generation after generation. Children are expected to take care of their parents in their old age and to place family matters before individual goals. A social constructionist would say that the Eastern understanding of family is socially constructed and is imbibed with the values of a collectivist culture.
