Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorVogt, Henrik
dc.contributor.authorUlvestad, Elling
dc.contributor.authorEriksen, Thor Eirik
dc.contributor.authorGetz, Linn
dc.date.accessioned2015-03-04T11:35:38Z
dc.date.accessioned2015-08-12T12:31:54Z
dc.date.available2015-03-04T11:35:38Z
dc.date.available2015-08-12T12:31:54Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Evaluation In Clinical Practice 2014, 20:942-952nb_NO
dc.identifier.issn1365-2753
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11250/296380
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.nb_NO
dc.language.isoengnb_NO
dc.publisherWileynb_NO
dc.relation.urihttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.12251/pdf
dc.titleGetting personal: Can systems medicine integrate scientific and humanistic conceptions of the patient?nb_NO
dc.typeJournal articlenb_NO
dc.typePeer revieweden_GB
dc.date.updated2015-03-04T11:35:38Z
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Medisinske fag: 700::Klinisk medisinske fag: 750::Allmennmedisin: 751nb_NO
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Midical sciences: 700::Clinical medical sciences: 750::General practice: 751nb_NO
dc.source.pagenumber942-952nb_NO
dc.source.volume20nb_NO
dc.source.journalJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practicenb_NO
dc.source.issue6nb_NO
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/jep.12251
dc.identifier.cristin1192261
dc.description.localcode© 2014 The Authors. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.nb_NO


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record