Lane, D. M. (2013). HyperStat online statistics textbook. Retrieved from http://davidmlane.com/hyperstat/index.html

Imagine that Jennifer Brea, whose TEDTalk (TED Conferences, LLC, 2016) you watched, is referred to you for ongoing supportive therapy when her psychiatry consultant decides that she does not have a conversion disorder. Despite the psychiatrist’s opinion, her primary care physician ignores that consult and labels Jennifer as having a somatic symptom disorder anyway.

Submit a 5-minute recorded PowerPoint (5–7 slides) in which you address the following:

• Explain in a concise professional manner how you would conduct your first meeting with Jennifer. Identify specific steps you would take to understand her circumstance and needs.
• Explain how you would proceed with her medical team in terms of advocacy for her as a client believed to have this condition.
• Explain why you would need to take a biopsychosocial approach to her ongoing care.
• Explain what social, family, vocational, Internet, and medical supports you would explore to help with her longer-term stabilization.
• Analyze the controversy in diagnosing a mental disorder based on unexplained physical symptoms. Within your analysis, consider how power and privilege influence who provides the diagnoses and which groups are more likely to be diagnosed with certain disorders. Explain your thoughts on this debate.

  lable at ScienceDirect

  Social Science & Medicine 73 (2011) 939e943

  Contents lists avai

  Social Science & Medicine

  journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/socscimed

  From diagnosis to social diagnosis

  Phil Brown*, Mercedes Lyson, Tania Jenkins Department of Sociology, Brown University, Box 1916, Providence, RI 02912-1916, United States

  a r t i c l e i n f o

  Article history: Available online 12 June 2011

  Keywords: Diagnosis Risk Social movements Environment Public health USA Canada Reservations

  * Corresponding author. E-mail address: Phil_Brown@brown.edu (P. Brown

  0277-9536/$ e see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.05.031

  a b s t r a c t

  In the past two decades, research on the sociology of diagnosis has attained considerable influence within medical sociology. Analyzing the process and factors that contribute to making a diagnosis amidst uncertainty and contestation, as well as the diagnostic encounter itself, are topics rich for sociological investigation. This paper provides a reformulation of the sociology of diagnosis by proposing the concept of ‘social diagnosis’ which helps us recognize the interplay between larger social structures and indi- vidual or community illness manifestations. By outlining a conceptual frame, exploring how social scientists, medical professionals and laypeople contribute to social diagnosis, and providing a case study of how the North American Mohawk Akwesasne reservation dealt with rising obesity prevalence to further illustrate the social diagnosis idea, we embark on developing a cohesive and updated framework for a sociology of diagnosis. This approach is useful not just for sociological research, but has direct implications for the fields of medicine and public health. Approaching diagnosis from this integrated perspective potentially provides a broader context for practitioners and researchers to understand extra- medical factors, which in turn has consequences for patient care and health outcomes.

  � 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  Introduction

  Sociological analysis of diagnosis has achieved considerable influence in the last two decades, providing important insight into how we understand health, disease, and illness. It has also expanded how we view the social and cultural influences that shape our knowledge and practice on health and illness. This includes studies of diagnosis that have gone beyond the interaction between physician and patient, to take into account the larger social, structural, and temporal forces that shape diagnosis (see, for example, the categorization of homosexuality as a mental disorder and the role of gay rights activists in the American Psychiatric Association’s deliberations) (Cooksey & Brown, 1998).

  Recently we have also seen the emergence of diseases whose etiologies, symptoms, and, therefore, diagnoses, are often contested or uncertain. This combination of medical and social uncertainty leads us to propose a reformulation of the concept social diagnosis as a new way of thinking about the sociology of diagnosis. This paper explores social diagnosis by first, outlining a conceptual framework of social diagnosis; second, discussing the different actors who contribute to social diagnoses; and third, providing a case study of

  ).

  All rights reserved.

  how to apply our social diagnosis approach. Lastly, we conclude with implications for sociology, medicine, and public health.

  Introducing social diagnosis

  Social diagnosis is ‘social’ for two reasons: First, it connects an illness or the act of diagnosing that illness to a set of political, economic, cultural and social conditions or factors. Second, social diagnosis is conducted by different social actors, and the actions of one group of stakeholders often spill over to affect the actions of other actors. As we will see, social diagnosis is done by sociologists who study diagnosis, as away for researchers of social medicine and the social determinants of health to look at the process, outcomes, and consequences of diagnosis. It is also done by the lay public vis- à-vis social movements that expand what goes into the diagnosing process. In this more comprehensive, public version of uncovering the social determinants of health, a condition is diagnosed by a social groupdfor example, the politicized collective illness iden- tity that arises over a contested disease like Gulf War Illness (Zavestoski, Brown, Linder, McCormick, & Mayer, 2002). Lastly, social diagnosis is a way to expand the lens of the public health and medical establishment in identifying what mechanisms and factors are consequential for individual and community health. Social diagnosis therefore provides a broader context for health practi- tioners, medical researchers, and social scientists to understand the

   

  mailto:Phil_Brown@brown.edu

  www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02779536

  http://www.elsevier.com/locate/socscimed

  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.05.031

  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.05.031

  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.05.031

   

  P. Brown et al. / Social Science & Medicine 73 (2011) 939e943940

  extent of extra-medical factors in health and illness. With that approach, neighborhood and community environments (which are themselves determined by larger structural forces) can be included in approaches to wellness, highlighting the intersection between individuals and the larger social forces that structure their lives.

  A genealogy of social diagnosticians

  Social scientists

  The roots of this approach are deep. The term “social diagnosis” was coined in Richmond’s (1917) book, Social Diagnosis, considered to be the classic textbook laying a professional foundation for social work, and which focused on examining a wide array of social conditions causing poverty and disease. This was a period when sociology and social work shared many common interests in doc- umenting and alleviating poverty, with the reformist Chicago School sociologists categorizing and analyzing urban social prob- lems that they traced to social structures rather than inborn characteristics.

  Even in the early 20th century, sociology focused on the social determinants of health and illness, as in Faris and Dunham’s (1939) work on mental illness. Decades later, Navarro (1976) andWaitzkin (2000), both MD/PhD sociologists, led the charge of other political economy scholars who sought to rekindle social medicine, found as early as Rudolf Virchow’s work in mid-19th century Europe, and more recently in Chile during Allende’s Popular Unity Government in the early 1970s.

  A committed approach to health inequalities, rooted in England, worked its way into the literature starting in the 1990s. A leading medical sociologist, Sol Levine, and a prominent social medicine physician, Alvin Tarlov, nurtured this endeavor in their Health and Society group, publicizing well-known British work such as Michael Marmot’s Whitehall Study, bringing key health inequalities researchers such as RichardWilkinson to the US as visiting scholars, and providing a research setting to nurture new health inequalities researchers (Amick, Levine, Tarlov, & Walsh, 1995). A young gener- ation of US-based scholars brought health inequalities work to the fore, emphasizing race, class, sex, ethnic, and neighborhood differ- ences (Kawachi, Kennedy, & Wilkinson, 1999; LaVeist, 2002; Williams, 1994). These scholars’ work helped push the National Institutes of Health to develop a strong program in health inequal- ities, though usually termed “health disparities,” a more neutral- sounding phrase. From being only a National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities, in 2010, NIH transformed the center into a full institute, the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, signifying a major acceptance of this work.

  Public health and medical professionals

  Medical professionals and public health scholars in the US share an important tradition of taking into account social factors in their work. For an example of 1960s social medicine that exemplifies social diagnosis performed by a physician, we can remember the work of Dr. Jack Geiger, a foundingmember of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) in 1943, a leader in efforts to end racial discrimi- nation in hospital care and medical schools admission and a 1960s founding member and National Program Chairman of the Medical Committee for Human Rightswhich protected and providedmedical care for civil rights workers. Geiger was famous for diagnosing poverty, racism, and hunger, and writing prescriptions for food to give to poor children, which he and colleagues did to garner public attention. More practically, the community health centers devel- oped in that era diagnosed disease as stemming from a multitude of social conditions. For example, staff would act on these diagnoses by

  seeking improvements in neighborhood parks and fighting for lead removal and blood lead testing (Lefkowitz, 2007).

  While the public health field in the US continued a strong commitment to examining social factors in disease, medicine often trailed after it. Occupational health, environmental health, nutri- tion, and community health training still remain marginalized in medical education and practice. Federal research, largely conducted through the National Institute of Health, emphasizes treatment over prevention. For example, the prestigious, well-funded National Cancer Institute provides few resources for researching environmental causation, leaving that to the much smaller National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences whose budget is 6.5 times smaller (Brown, 2007) Sociologists have played a role in examining social factors in disease, working alongside public health scholars and community activists in pursuing multi-causal approaches to understanding disease and developing multi- pronged solutions (Brody et al., 2009).

  Public participation/social movements

  Diagnosis is simultaneously a site of compromise and contes- tation because it is a relational process. When there is a disconnect between the patient and the medical explanatory model, the individual may be unsatisfiedwith treatment goals, and collectively work to politicize the illness through social movements. This would be the case especially if people were not given a diagnosis for something which they expected to, or when they received a psychiatric diagnosis for something they believe is physical. The greater the symptom severity or the disconnect between lay and professional perspectives on diagnosis, the greater the likeli- hood of contestation.

  In contesting diseases and conditions, people often seek to reshape or overturn a shared set of entrenched beliefs and practices about diagnosis, causation, and treatment that is embedded within a network of institutions, including medicine, law, science, government, health charities/voluntaries, and the media. This network is the “dominant epidemiological paradigm” for a given disease. Activists challenge the dominant epidemiological para- digm by shifting the modes of scientific inquiry, and by refocusing regulatory and policy attention (Brown, 2007). Scientists may be asked to weigh in on questions that are virtually impossible to answer scientifically, either because data do not exist or because studies required to answer the question at hand are not feasible. Scientists may frame political, moral, or ethical questions in scientific terms thus limiting lay participation. This scientization protects the illusion of medical omnipotence and delegitimizes questions that cannot be framed in scientific terms (Morello-Frosch et al., 2006). Health social movements may respond to these situ- ations by marshaling resources to conduct their own research and produce scientific knowledge in a process known as “popular epidemiology” (Brown, 2007). In doing so, they democratize the production of scientific knowledge and then use that transformed science as the basis for demands for improved research on disease etiology, treatment, prevention, and stricter regulation.

  These concerns may extend into the legal realmwhen diagnoses are a classification of what the individual’s health status could be in the future. Exposed people may seek redress through medical monitoring torts in advance of injury, in an attempt to offset the costs associated with periodic testing in order to ascertain whether a given exposure has led to changes in health status (Maskin, Cailteux, & McLaren, 2001). Even US law now recognizes that disease is no longer a unique collection of symptoms equaling a given condition, but rather a constellation of current symptoms, previous exposures, and future potential manifestations, all of which make the art of diagnosis even more precarious.

   

   

  P. Brown et al. / Social Science & Medicine 73 (2011) 939e943 941

  The democratization of medicine and science we have mentioned above is made possible by bringing the discussion of diagnosis out into the open, rather than keeping it restricted to professionals. Krimsky (2002) notes that the endocrine disrupter hypothesis (that argues for the central role of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in many diseases) was discussed quite extensively in the public light, far beyond the shelter of academic journals and government funding agencies. His notion of a “public hypothesis” helps us see that increasingly, challenges to scientific orthodoxy are shaped by public discussion in the media, social movement orga- nizations, virtual communities, and other accessible formats (e.g. homosexuality, post-traumatic stress disorder). When people view their diagnosis as stemming from a particular toxic exposure, they are rarely satisfied with the simple act of diagnosis. Rather, they seek evidence of causation in order to seek redress in various forms: medical coverage, medical monitoring, relocation, compensation, assignment of blame, and (less commonly) the incalculable but valuable apology from responsible parties. As discussed earlier, in the absence of a specific diagnosis, people with a shared environmental exposure sometimes file suits for medical monitoring, to ensure that they have lifetime checkups to diagnose a disease process as early as possible.

  Yet despite a rich history of social diagnosis exercised by various actors, including sociologists, public health officials and the public, the above-mentioned strands have not yet been well-connected, nor woven into a social diagnosis framework. Below, we discuss several elements of a social diagnosis model.

  1) A social diagnosis approach is more comprehensive than a political economy/health inequalities outlook that accounts for how larger social structures affect diagnostic processes. In social diagnosis, we also must “socially diagnose” those struc- tures themselves. In this light, we would argue that the injured foot of a ballet dancer is not merely an injury caused by a pointe shoe. It includes the larger setting of the balletic art form e its teachers, theaters, dance companies, dance critics e as socially iatrogenic. It includes gender roles that force-fit women into many uncomfortable clothes and shoes, and anorexogenic notions of beauty that limit the art form. Our diagnosis would be of an unhealthy foot in an unhealthy art form in an unhealthy culture. Treatment and prevention goes beyond the individual, seeking to restructure power, capacity, and community in the surrounding society.

  2) Traditionally, diagnosis dealt with diseases and symptoms in the past and present, with future orientation toward only treatment and prognosis. Indeed, even attempts at incorpo- rating social factors into diagnosis (either by healthcare professionals or sociologists) do not adequately account for a third dimension of time; that is, the future. Today, potentiality is an important concept, where a biomarker may or may not indicate future diseases. This potentiality introduces new contestations and foci; preventive medicine now goes beyond generic health advice, to consider borderline categories: pre-diabetes, pre-high cholesterol, pre-hypertension. Further, patients are increasingly prescribed pharmaceuticals to regu- late these borderline conditions (Welch, Schwartz, &Woloshin, 2011). Therefore, a social diagnosis approach must contend not only with past and present conditions, but explicitly consider the potentiality of future conditions, specifically because they may have social causes and consequences.

  3) The process of diagnosis is carried out bymultiple social actors, including medical professionals, researchers, government agencies, private corporations, social movements, and legal institutions. For example, we can understand the role of public health agencies in new forms of surveillance geared to

  population exposure measurement and to the diagnosis of pre-disease. Combined with increased academic and advocacy research in this area, biomonitoring and household exposure has opened vast new realms of seeing potential disease causes at microscopic levels. Therefore, in a social diagnosis frame- work, not only are social factors considered in the diagnosis, but a variety of social actors are contributing to the creation of that diagnosis. In doing so, they diagnose not only individuals but societiesda practicewhich is growing evermore important in light of increasing biomedical uncertainty.

  To further elaborate on and exemplify this idea of social diag- nosis, we will use the case of obesity and diabetes in Akwesasne, a Mohawk reservation straddling New York and Canada. This situ- ation demonstrates how diagnosis has moved from the individual to society, and is being performed by more than just doctors.

  The multiple layers of diagnosis in obesity and diabetes: A case study of social diagnosis in action

  Obesity and diabetes have become a major concern of both environmental justice and health groups in the 2000s. There is broad understanding that, in addition to individual and lifestyle factors, obesity is caused by numerous social phenomena: increased consumption of processed foods (especially high fructose corn syrup), food deserts, poor school lunch programs, a decline in school physical education, and unsafe recreation spaces. Social diagnosis looks here at an unhealthy body within an unhealthy community, itself situated in an unhealthy food system.

  Hoover’s (2010) medical anthropological study of local food production and community illness narratives in the Akwesasne Mohawk community found diabetes to be a central concern. Rising prevalence indicated a rate higher than both the state and national averages, and lay awareness of this led to a complex set of diag- noses. Residents in this highly contaminated area (primarily due to PCBs and fluoride from local industry) believed that there were two potential pathways through which contamination increased diabetes risk. The direct pathway was based on recent science linking exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals, to obesity (Baillie-Hamilton, 2002; Newbold, Padilla-Banks, Snyder, Phillips, & Jefferson, 2007). The indirect pathway was based on fear of contamination, including fish advisories and concerns over soil contamination, leading people to abandon traditional local foods for less healthy processed foods, and hence also getting less exer- cise since they were not gardening and fishing. This second pathway, rooted in a risk society perception, also led to changes in the traditions and cultures of the community, leading to a broader social illness.

  We do not imply here that the discovery of contamination led to obesity. Rather, the discovery of the toxicants set off a cascade of events that meshed with other reservation developments, which then involved dietary and agricultural changes. Such changes have occurred in other communities, sometimes because of contami- nation discovery and sometimes for different reasons such as urban decline. This then leads to the departure of groceries with fresh produce or to the immigration of people from more self-sufficient food regimes to urban locales flooded with fast-food restaurants and completely lacking any resources to continue traditional practices.

  Using Chaufan’s (2004, 2008) work, Hoover argues that themedicalized approach to diabetes individualizes anddepoliticizes the problem.Alternatively, a political ecology framework emphasizes social, economic, and political institutions of human environments where diabetes is emerging. Hoover adapts Scheper-Hughes and Lock’s (1987) model of three bodies e the individual body, the

   

   

  P. Brown et al. / Social Science & Medicine 73 (2011) 939e943942

  social body and the body politic. As Hoover points out, in addition to losing the nutrition from fishing and gardening, people also lost the physical and cultural activity involved in that food production. This led to fewer burned calories, affecting the individual body, but also to broader losses affecting the social bodye the failure to connect with ancestral ways and to pass traditions onto youth. Eating is an important social experience, and the sharing of food is an integral part of Mohawk culture, full of morals around cooperation and proper behavior. This larger unity of the body politic is especially important at present, when the community is less united due to overlapping tribal, US, and Canadian governing bodies. Akwesasne environmental health activists used their mobilization around contamination as a way to achieve general social unification and harmony. When people seek to take control of individual and social levels of obesogenic and diabetogenic conditions, this crisis that originates inmassive contamination has the capacity to provide new unity.

  In effect, we see that what might appear as a straightforward diagnosis of a metabolic disease is in fact much more complex. Hoover’s analysis of the social diagnosis of this condition builds on the community-based participatory research by the laypeople and traditional healers of Akwesasne, in alliance with university scholars and environmental health scientists, and implicates indi- vidual, social and cultural, and body-politic disease contributors. Such analysis informs us that by the time it reaches the body politic, biological disease goes to the core of the social fabric, and warrants an overall restructuring of power, capacity, and community. Further, we see that struggles over diagnosis are simultaneously struggles over causation. In this light, we can understand themulti- temporality of diagnosis: it is not only about the present, where people seek knowledge about the symptoms they experience. It is also about the past, whereby people seek the causes of problems that led to a current diagnosis. As well, it is about the future, where the medical and social sequelae of the diagnosis reside along with the treatment and prognosis.

  Conclusion

  Studying diagnosis provides a window into many components of health and illness, and presents an organizing configuration and master frame. Our expansion into understanding and elaborating on social diagnosis makes this broader framework more applicable to an even greater number of research arenas. The act of diagnosing an illness is important on multiple levels. It is about an individual’s relationship to the illness or act of diagnosis, the collectivity of people who suffer from an illness, and the larger social structures that influence the illness and its diagnosis. In other words, it is about locating an individual and a group in relation to key social structures.

  In this paper, we have sought to understand the unique context in which social diagnoses are formedda sociology of social diag- nosis. To reiterate, social diagnosis is social in that it considers both larger social structures, as well as the various social actors which contribute to the diagnosis. In other words, a broad range of social factors goes into the making of a diagnosis, which is carried out by amyriad of social actors. The diagnosing of individuals can allow for the broader diagnosis of a group of illness sufferers, and an even broader diagnosing of communities, as the Akwesasne example clearly illustrates. From here, we have drawn five key lessons which will not provide a one-size-fits-all framework, but will help prag- matically identify the role social diagnosis can play across many different situations and among different constellations of actors:

  1) Social diagnosis moves beyond individual-level explanations for health outcomes;

  2) Social diagnosis recognizes commonalities in the group experience;

  3) Social diagnosis moves beyond a diagnosis that is limited to treating or identifying symptoms and toward identifying more macro-structural roots. From here, it prescribes identifying and treating the fundamental causes of the problem, as opposed to just the proximal symptoms;

  4) Social diagnosis relies on scientific evidence, but recognizes that useful science might not always come from mainstream sources, particularly when it involves laypeople;

  5) Lastly, social diagnosis is attentive to changes across both the short and long term. Itmovesbeyonda cross-sectional approach todiagnosis and insteadpreferences amulti-temporal approach to diagnosis, one that changes over time.

  Social diagnosis offers three benefits: it is a concept that can be used by diverse actors –medical sociology and other medical social sciences, public health, and medicine; it is not only about diag- nosing individuals, but also about diagnosing institutions and organizations; and it is simultaneously a description of our analytic approach and a prescription for how to intervene. Social diagnosis can be an interesting tool for sociologists in various specialties within the discipline, as well as researchers outside the discipline. For example, environmental sociologists examining a disease such as asthma can take students on toxic tours in order to show the neighborhood factors and pollution sources related to asthma. Social diagnosis can also be applied to medical history and science, technology, and society analyses of disease concepts and medical practices. The social diagnosis approach offers valuable lessons for physicians and other health professionals. In particular, the cursory instruction in occupational and environmental medicine in medical school can be countered through showing professionals how to ask appropriate questions about environmental and occupational exposure. ‘Narrative medicine,’ formulated by Rita Charon (2006), teaches medical students and physicians to attend to the totality of life experience through eliciting and listening to patient stories, in order to more thoroughly diagnose them. Pediatrician Rosalind Wright diagnoses asthma as being exacerbated by violence at home and in inner-city neighborhoods (Wright & Steinbach, 2001). This leads her to seek intervention strategies aimed at reducing violence exposure, reducing stress, and counseling victims, in addition to more traditional asthma treatment. At a preventive level, she urges policy directions that address the social, economic, and political factors that contribute to crime and violence.

  Social diagnosis as a concept may not seem new to sociology, but it has yet to be developed into an enunciated framework and program for research and/or action. For example, sociologist Eric Klinenberg’s account of the 1995 Chicago heat wave introduces the notion of social autopsy by effectively conducting a post-mortem of the natural disaster and the various social factors that affected its victims (2002). In doing so, Klinenberg provides a social diagnosis of the heat wave, citing social isolation as one of the main causes and prescribing changes in the social structure to prevent relapse. This could serve as a very potent framework for sociologists and practitioners alike to carefully and systematically consider those social factors that play a crucial role in health. Also, while medical sociology recognizes many extra-medical factors, the environ- mental factors so important today have not been widely consid- ered. Hence, there are still lessons to be learned about the multi-factorial causes of morbidity and mortality. Sociologists also continue to face uncertainty in knowing which social factors they ought to focus their attention on. Further, clinical examples such as those above may seem logical to medical sociologists, but they are not generally accepted in the world of medicine. If medical sociologists work with clinicians and public health practitioners,

   

   

  P. Brown et al. / Social Science & Medicine 73 (2011) 939e943 943

  they may be able to jointly develop effective ways to use social diagnosis for both treatment and prevention.

  Acknowledgments

  We are grateful to David Ciplet, Alissa Cordner, Leah Greenblum, Bindu Pannikar, and Allison Waters for comments.

  References

  Amick, B., Levine, S., Tarlov, A. R., & Walsh, D. C. (Eds.). (1995). Society and health. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  Baillie-Hamilton, P. F. (2002). Chemical toxins: a hypothesis to explain the global obesity epidemic. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 8(2), 185e192.

  Brody, J., Morello-Frosch, R., Zota, A., Brown, P., Pérez, C., & Rudel, R. (2009). Linking exposure assessment science with policy objectives for environmental justice and breast cancer advocacy: the Northern California household exposure study. American Journal of Public Health, 99, S600eS609.

  Brown, P. (2007). Toxic exposures: Contested illnesses and the environmental health movement. New York: Columbia University Press.

  Charon, R. (2006). Narrative medicine: Honoring the stories of illness. New York: Oxford University Press.

  Chaufan, C. (2004). Sugar blues: a social anatomy of the diabetes epidemic in the United States. In A. Castro, & M. Singer (Eds.), Unhealthy health policy: A critical anthropological examination (pp. 257e274). Walnut Creek: Alta Mira Press.

  Chaufan, C. (2008). What does justice have to do with it? A bioethical and socio- logical perspective on the diabetes epidemic. In B. K. Rothman, E. Armstrong, & R. Tiger (Eds.), Bioethical issues, sociological perspectives (pp. 269e301). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

  Cooksey, E., & Brown, P. (1998). Spinning on its axes: DSM and the social construction of psychiatric diagnosis. International Journal of Health Services, 28(3), 525e554.

  Faris, R. E. L., & Dunham, W. H. D. (1939). Mental disorders in urban areas: An ecological study of schizophrenia and other psychoses. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

  Hoover, E. (2010). Local food production and community illness narratives: responses to environmental contamination in the Mohawk community of Akwesasne. PhD Dissertation: Anthropology Department. Providence: Brown University.

  Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B., & Wilkinson, R. (Eds.). (1999). The society and population health reader: Income inequality and health. New York: The New Press.

  Klinenberg, E. (2002). Heat wave: A social autopsy of disaster in Chicago. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

  Krimsky, S. (2002). Hormonal chaos: The scientific and social origins of the environmental endocrine hypothesis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

  LaVeist, T. (Ed.). (2002). Race, ethnicity, and health: A public health reader. New York: Jossey-Bass.

  Lefkowitz, B. (2007). Community health center: A movement and the people who made it happen. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

  Maskin, A., Cailteux, K. L., & McLaren, J. M. (2001). Medical monitoring: a viable remedy for deserving plaintiffs or tort law’s most expensive consolation prize? Specialty Law Digest: Health Care Law, 272, 9e38.

  Morello-Frosch, R., Zavestoski, S., Brown, P., Altman, R. G., McCormick, S., & Mayer, B. (2006). Embodied health movements: Responses to a ‘scientized’ world. In K. Moore, & S. Frickel (Eds.), The new political sociology of science: Institutions, networks, and power. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

  Navarro, V. (1976). Medicine under capitalism. New York: Prodist. Newbold, R. R., Padilla-Banks, E., Snyder, R. J., Phillips, T. M., & Jefferson, W. N.

  (2007). Developmental exposure to endocrine disruptors and the obesity epidemic. Reproductive Toxicology, 23(3), 290e296.

  Richmond, M. E. (1917). Social diagnosis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Scheper-Hughes, N., & Lock, M. (1987). The mindful body: a prolegomenon to future

  work in medical anthropology. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 1(1), 6e41, New Series.

  Waitzkin, H. (2000). The second sickness: Contradictions in capitalist healthcare. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

  Welch, H., Schwartz, L., & Woloshin, S. (2011). Overdiagnosed: Making people sick in the pursuit of health. Boston: Beacon Publishing.

  Williams, D. R. (1994). The concept of race in health services research, 1966e1990. Health Services Research, 29(3), 261e274.

  Wright, R. J., & Steinbach, S. F. (2001). Violence: an unrecognized environmental exposure that may contribute to greater asthma morbidity in high risk inner- city populations. Environmental Health Perspectives, 109(10), 1085e1089.

  Zavestoski, S., Brown, P., Linder, M., McCormick, S., & Mayer, B. (2002). Science, policy, activism, and war: defining the health of Gulf War veterans. Science, Technology & Human Values, 27(2), 171e205.

   

  • From diagnosis to social diagnosis
    • Introduction
    • Introducing social diagnosis
    • A genealogy of social diagnosticians
      • Social scientists
      • Public health and medical professionals
      • Public participation/social movements
    • The multiple layers of diagnosis in obesity and diabetes: A case study of social diagnosis in action
    • Conclusion
    • Acknowledgments
    • References