IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v70y2010i6p934-941.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

'A pill for every ill': Explaining the expansion in medicine use

Author

Listed:
  • Busfield, Joan

Abstract

This paper explores the major factors underpinning the expansion in medicine use over recent decades, using England as an example. It begins by constructing a 'progressive' model of the expansion and considers its limitations; it then uses a framework of countervailing powers to examine the contribution of key actors in the field. It examines the commercial orientation of the pharmaceutical industry and the strategies companies deploy to generate demand for their products. It explores the part played by doctors as researchers and gatekeepers to medicines, considering how features of medical knowledge and practice contribute to, rather than curtail, the expansion. It considers the role of the public as consumers of medicines, and the role of governments and insurance companies in both facilitating and controlling medicine use.

Suggested Citation

  • Busfield, Joan, 2010. "'A pill for every ill': Explaining the expansion in medicine use," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 934-941, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:70:y:2010:i:6:p:934-941
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(09)00819-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Corrigan, Oonagh P., 2002. "A risky business: the detection of adverse drug reactions in clinical trials and post-marketing exercises," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 497-507, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gabe, Jonathan & Chamberlain, Kerry & Norris, Pauline & Dew, Kevin & Madden, Helen & Hodgetts, Darrin, 2012. "The debate about the funding of Herceptin: A case study of ‘countervailing powers’," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2353-2361.
    2. Ebeling, Mary, 2011. "'Get with the Program!': Pharmaceutical marketing, symptom checklists and self-diagnosis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(6), pages 825-832, September.
    3. Unruh, Lynn & Rice, Thomas & Rosenau, Pauline Vaillancourt & Barnes, Andrew J., 2016. "The 2013 cholesterol guideline controversy: Would better evidence prevent pharmaceuticalization?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(7), pages 797-808.
    4. Vallée, Manuel, 2019. "The countervailing forces behind France's low Ritalin consumption," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 238(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Baum, Frances E. & Laris, Paul & Fisher, Matthew & Newman, Lareen & MacDougall, Colin, 2013. "“Never mind the logic, give me the numbers”: Former Australian health ministers' perspectives on the social determinants of health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 138-146.
    6. Venn, Susan & Meadows, Robert & Arber, Sara, 2013. "Gender differences in approaches to self-management of poor sleep in later life," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 117-123.
    7. Thomas, Felicity, 2016. "Young people's use of medicines: Pharmaceuticalised governance and illness management within household and school settings," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 150-158.
    8. Bertotti, Andrea M. & Mann, Emily S. & Miner, Skye A., 2021. "Efficacy as safety: Dominant cultural assumptions and the assessment of contraceptive risk," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 270(C).
    9. Fisher, Jill A. & Cottingham, Marci D. & Kalbaugh, Corey A., 2015. "Peering into the pharmaceutical “pipeline”: Investigational drugs, clinical trials, and industry priorities," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 322-330.
    10. Bell, Susan E. & Figert, Anne E., 2012. "Medicalization and pharmaceuticalization at the intersections: Looking backward, sideways and forward," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(5), pages 775-783.
    11. Thomas, Felicity & Depledge, Michael, 2015. "Medicine ‘misuse’: Implications for health and environmental sustainability," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 81-87.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Guy Shtar & Lior Rokach & Bracha Shapira, 2019. "Detecting drug-drug interactions using artificial neural networks and classic graph similarity measures," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-21, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:70:y:2010:i:6:p:934-941. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.