Evidence for the dimensions
The extent to which beliefs about illness comprise these different dimensions has been studied using both qualitative and quantitative research. Leventhal and colleagues carried out interviews with individuals who were chronically ill (having been recently diagnosed with cancer) and healthy adults. Participants’ descriptions of their illness indeed suggested underlying beliefs made up of the above dimensions. Other studies have provided support for these dimensions using more artificial and controlled methodologies. Lau, Bernard and Hartman (1989) asked 20 people to sort 65 statements into piles that ‘made sense to them’. These statements had been previously made in response to descriptions of ‘your most recent illness’. The researchers reported that the piles of categories that people produced reflected the dimensions of identity of the illness (diagnosis/symptoms), its consequences (the possible effects), the time line (how long it would last), the cause (what caused the illness) and cure/control (how and whether it could be treated). A series of experimental studies by Bishop and colleagues provided further support for this framework. For example, Bishop and Converse (1986) presented participants with brief descriptions of patients who were experiencing six symptoms. The participants were randomly allocate to one of two sets of descriptions – a ‘high prototype’, in which all six symptoms had been previously rated as associated with a given disease, and a ‘low prototype’, in which only two of the six symptoms had beenpreviously rated as being associated with the same disease. It was found that those individuals in the high prototype condition labelled the disease more easily and accurately than did those in the low prototype condition. The authors argued that this provides support for the role of the identity dimension (i.e. diagnosis and symptoms) of illness representations, and that this also suggested that there is some consistency in people’s concept of the identity of illnesses. Participants were also asked to describe in their own words what else they thought may be associated with each patient’s situation. Bishop and Converse reported that 91 per cent of the associations fell within the aforementioned dimensions of illness beliefs. Within these, the dimensions of ‘consequences’ (the possible effects) and ‘time line’ (how long it will last) were the least frequently mentioned dimensions. There is also some evidence for a similar structure of illness representations in other non-Western cultures (Lau, 1995; Weller, 1984).
The extent to which beliefs about illness comprise these different dimensions has been studied using both qualitative and quantitative research. Leventhal and colleagues carried out interviews with individuals who were chronically ill (having been recently diagnosed with cancer) and healthy adults. Participants’ descriptions of their illness indeed suggested underlying beliefs made up of the above dimensions. Other studies have provided support for these dimensions using more artificial and controlled methodologies. Lau, Bernard and Hartman (1989) asked 20 people to sort 65 statements into piles that ‘made sense to them’. These statements had been previously made in response to descriptions of ‘your most recent illness’. The researchers reported that the piles of categories that people produced reflected the dimensions of identity of the illness (diagnosis/symptoms), its consequences (the possible effects), the time line (how long it would last), the cause (what caused the illness) and cure/control (how and whether it could be treated). A series of experimental studies by Bishop and colleagues provided further support for this framework. For example, Bishop and Converse (1986) presented participants with brief descriptions of patients who were experiencing six symptoms. The participants were randomly allocate to one of two sets of descriptions – a ‘high prototype’, in which all six symptoms had been previously rated as associated with a given disease, and a ‘low prototype’, in which only two of the six symptoms had beenpreviously rated as being associated with the same disease. It was found that those individuals in the high prototype condition labelled the disease more easily and accurately than did those in the low prototype condition. The authors argued that this provides support for the role of the identity dimension (i.e. diagnosis and symptoms) of illness representations, and that this also suggested that there is some consistency in people’s concept of the identity of illnesses. Participants were also asked to describe in their own words what else they thought may be associated with each patient’s situation. Bishop and Converse reported that 91 per cent of the associations fell within the aforementioned dimensions of illness beliefs. Within these, the dimensions of ‘consequences’ (the possible effects) and ‘time line’ (how long it will last) were the least frequently mentioned dimensions. There is also some evidence for a similar structure of illness representations in other non-Western cultures (Lau, 1995; Weller, 1984).
No comments:
Post a Comment