Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorVogt, Henriken_US
dc.contributor.authorUlvestad, Ellingen_US
dc.contributor.authorEriksen, Thor Eiriken_US
dc.contributor.authorGetz, Linnen_US
dc.date.accessioned2015-03-27T12:50:00Z
dc.date.available2015-03-27T12:50:00Z
dc.date.issued2014-12eng
dc.identifier.issn1356-1294
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1956/9686
dc.description.abstractRationale, aims and objectives The practicing doctor, and most obviously the primary care clinician who encounters the full complexity of patients, faces several fundamental but intrinsically related theoretical and practical challenges – strongly actualized by so-called medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) and multi-morbidity. Systems medicine, which is the emerging application of systems biology to medicine and a merger of molecular biomedicine, systems theory and mathematical modelling, has recently been proposed as a primary care-centered strategy for medicine that promises to meet these challenges. Significantly, it has been proposed to do so in a way that at first glance may seem compatible with humanistic medicine. More specifically, it is promoted as an integrative, holistic, personalized and patient-centered approach. In this article, we ask whether and to what extent systems medicine can provide a comprehensive conceptual account of and approach to the patient and the root causes of health problems that can be reconciled with the concept of the patient as a person, which is an essential theoretical element in humanistic medicine. Methods We answer this question through a comparative analysis of the theories of primary care doctor Eric Cassell and systems biologist Denis Noble. Results and conclusions We argue that, although systems biological concepts, notably Noble’s theory of biological relativity and downward causation, are highly relevant for understanding human beings and health problems, they are nevertheless insufficient in fully bridging the gap to humanistic medicine. Systems biologists are currently unable to conceptualize living wholes, and seem unable to account for meaning, value and symbolic interaction, which are central concepts in humanistic medicine, as constraints on human health. Accordingly, systems medicine as currently envisioned cannot be said to be integrative, holistic, personalized or patient-centered in a humanistic medical sense.en_US
dc.language.isoengeng
dc.publisherWileyeng
dc.relation.urihttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.12251/pdfeng
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs CC BY-NC-NDeng
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/eng
dc.subjectAgencyeng
dc.subjectbiopsychosocial medicineeng
dc.subjectdownward causationeng
dc.subjectemergenceeng
dc.subjectExperienceeng
dc.subjectfree willeng
dc.titleGetting personal: Can systems medicine integrate scientific and humanistic conceptions of the patient?en_US
dc.typePeer reviewed
dc.typeJournal article
dc.date.updated2015-03-04T11:35:40Zen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2014 The Authors
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12251
dc.identifier.cristin1192261
dc.source.journalJournal of Evaluation In Clinical Practice
dc.source.4020
dc.source.146
dc.source.pagenumber942-952
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Medical sciences: 700::Clinical medical sciences: 750::General practice: 751eng
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Medisinske fag: 700::Klinisk medisinske fag: 750::Allmennmedisin: 751nob


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs CC BY-NC-ND
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs CC BY-NC-ND