http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7342/860
BMJ 2002;324:860-861 ( 13 April )
Editorials
Health: perception versus observation
Self reported morbidity has severe limitations and can be
extremely misleading
Critical scrutiny of public health care and medical strategy depends, among
other things, on how individual states of health and illness are
assessed. One of the complications in evaluating health states arises
from the fact that a person's own understanding of his or her health
may not accord with the appraisal of medical experts. More generally,
there is a conceptual contrast between "internal" views of health
(based on the patient's own perceptions) and "external" views (based
on the observations of doctors or pathologists). Although the two
views can certainly be combined (a good practitioner would be
interested in both), major tension often exists between evaluations
based respectively on the two perspectives.
The external view has come under considerable criticism recently,
particularly from anthropological perspectives, for taking a
distanced and less sensitive view of illness and health. 1
2 It has also been argued that public health
decisions are quite often inadequately responsive to the patient's
own understanding of suffering and healing. This type of criticism
sometimes has much cogency, but in assessing this debate the severe
limitations of the internal perspective must also be considered. Self
reported morbidity is, in fact, already widely used as a part of
social statistics, and a scrutiny of these statistics brings out
difficulties that can thoroughly mislead public policy on health care
and medical strategy.
For sensory assessment, the priority of the internal view can hardly be
disputed
for example,
pain is quintessentially a matter of self perception. If you feel
pain, you do have pain, and if you do not feel pain, then no external
observer can sensibly reject the view that you do not have pain. But
medical practice is not concerned only with the sensory dimension of
ill health. One problem with relying on the patient's own view of
matters that are not entirely sensory lies in the fact that the
patient's internal assessment may be seriously limited by his or her
social experience. To take an extreme case, a person brought up in a
community with a great many diseases and few medical facilities may
be inclined to take certain symptoms as "normal" when they are
clinically preventable.
Consider the different states of India, which have very diverse medical
conditions, mortality rates, educational achievements, and so on. The
state of Kerala has the highest levels of literacy (nearly universal
for the young) and longevity (a life expectancy of about 74 years) in
India. But it also has, by a very wide margin, the highest rate of
reported morbidity among all Indian states (this applies to age
specific as well as total comparisons). At the other extreme, states
with low longevity, with woeful medical and educational facilities,
such as Bihar, have the lowest rates of reported morbidity in India.
Indeed, the lowness of reported morbidity runs almost fully in the
opposite direction to life expectancy, in interstate comparisons.3-5
We have to ask why such dissonance arises. There is much evidence that people
in states that provide more education and better medical and health
facilities are in a better position to diagnose and perceive their
own particular illnesses than are the people in less advantaged
states, where there is less awareness of treatable conditions (to be
distinguished from "natural" states of being). The medically
ill-served and substantially illiterate population of Bihar may have
a very low perception of illness, but that is no indication that
there is little illness to perceive. This interpretation is supported
also by comparing the reported morbidity rates in the Indian states
and in the United States. In disease by disease comparison, while
Kerala has much higher reported morbidity rates than the rest of
India, the United States has even higher rates for the same
illnesses.6 If we insist on relying on self
reported morbidity as the measure, we would have to conclude that the
United States is the least healthy in this comparison, followed by
Kerala, with ill provided Bihar enjoying the highest level of health,
in this charmed internal comparison.
Although the internal view is privileged with respect to some information
(particularly that of a sensory nature), it can be deeply deficient
in other ways. There is a strong need for scrutinising the statistics
on self perception of illness in a social context by taking note of
levels of education, availability of health facilities, and public
information on illness and remedy.3-5
The internal view of health deserves attention, but relying on it in
assessing health care or in evaluating medical strategy can be
extremely misleading.
Amartya Sen, master of Trinity College.
Master's Lodge, Trinity College, Cambridge CB2 1TQ
| 1. |
Kleinman A. The illness narrative: suffering, healing
and the human condition. New York: Basic Books, 1988. |
| 2. |
Kleinman A. Writing at the margin: discourse between
anthropology and medicine. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1995. |
| 3. |
Sen A. Positional objectivity. Philosophy and Public
Affairs 1993; 22: 126-145.
|
| 4. |
Sen A. Mortality as an indicator of economic success and
failure. Economic Journal 1998; 108: 1-25.
|
| 5. |
Sen A. Commodities and capabilities. Amsterdam:
North Holland, 1985; republished, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999. |
| 6. |
Chen L, Murray C. Understanding morbidity change.
Population and Development Review 1992; 18(Sep): 481-504.
|
| 7. |
Human Development Report. New York: United Nations
Development Programme, 1996. |
| 8. |
Drèze J, Sen A. India: development and participation.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. |
| 9. |
National Center for Health Statistics. Vital and health
statistics. Hyattsville, MD: 1986. (Series 10, No 160.) |
© BMJ 2002
Rapid Responses:
Read all Rapid Responses
- Absolute health and lack of it: Both Utopia
- Soumitra Shankar Datta, et al.
- bmj.com, 12 Apr 2002
[Full text]
Other related articles in BMJ:
- EDITOR'S CHOICE
Postmodern medicine.
- BMJ 2002 324: 0.
[Full text]
ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND
MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION
PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS
OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR
LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND
COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH
YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.