Naming Migraine and Those Who Have It.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Naming Migraine and Those Who Have It.
Authors: Young, William B., Kempner, Joanna, Loder, Elizabeth W., Roberts, Jason, Segal, Judy Z., Solomon, Miriam, Cady, Roger K., Janoff, Laura, Sheeler, Robert D., Robert, Teri, Yocum, Jennifer, Sheftell, Fred D.
Source: Headache: The Journal of Head & Face Pain. Feb2012, Vol. 52 Issue 2, p283-291. 9p.
Subjects: Migraine, Terms & phrases, Delphi method, Judgment sampling, Psychology
Abstract: Medical language has implications for both public perception of and institutional responses to illness. A consensus panel of physicians, academics, advocates, and patients with diverse experiences and knowledge about migraine considered 3 questions: (1) What is migraine: an illness, disease, syndrome, condition, disorder, or susceptibility? (2) What ought we call someone with migraine? (3) What should we not call someone with migraine? Although consensus was not reached, theresponses were summarized and analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. Panelists participated in writing and editing the paper. The panelists agreed that 'migraine,' not 'migraine headache,' was generally preferable, that migraine met the dictionary definition for each candidate moniker, terms with psychiatric valence should be avoided, and 'sufferer' should be avoided except in very limited circumstances. Overall, while there was no consensus, 'disease' was the preferred term in the most situations, and illness the least preferred. Panelists disagreed strongly whether one ought to use the term 'migraineur' at all or if 'person with migraine' was preferable. Panelists drew upon a variety of principles when considering language choices, including the extent to which candidate monikers could be defended using biomedical evidence, the cultural meaning of the proposed term, and the context within which the term would be used. Panelists strove to balance the need for terms to describe the best science on migraine, with the desire to choose language that would emphasize the credibility of migraine. The wide range of symptoms of migraine and its diverse effects may require considerable elasticity of language. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Headache: The Journal of Head & Face Pain is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
Description
Abstract:Medical language has implications for both public perception of and institutional responses to illness. A consensus panel of physicians, academics, advocates, and patients with diverse experiences and knowledge about migraine considered 3 questions: (1) What is migraine: an illness, disease, syndrome, condition, disorder, or susceptibility? (2) What ought we call someone with migraine? (3) What should we not call someone with migraine? Although consensus was not reached, theresponses were summarized and analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. Panelists participated in writing and editing the paper. The panelists agreed that 'migraine,' not 'migraine headache,' was generally preferable, that migraine met the dictionary definition for each candidate moniker, terms with psychiatric valence should be avoided, and 'sufferer' should be avoided except in very limited circumstances. Overall, while there was no consensus, 'disease' was the preferred term in the most situations, and illness the least preferred. Panelists disagreed strongly whether one ought to use the term 'migraineur' at all or if 'person with migraine' was preferable. Panelists drew upon a variety of principles when considering language choices, including the extent to which candidate monikers could be defended using biomedical evidence, the cultural meaning of the proposed term, and the context within which the term would be used. Panelists strove to balance the need for terms to describe the best science on migraine, with the desire to choose language that would emphasize the credibility of migraine. The wide range of symptoms of migraine and its diverse effects may require considerable elasticity of language. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:00178748
DOI:10.1111/j.1526-4610.2011.01995.x