Anne Kveim Lie

05.12.2024: Kronikk - Medisinstudenters opphold i lav- og mellominntektsland må skje under gjensidig forpliktende og likeverdige partnerskap – og ikke som klinisk turisme.

The emergence of key concepts in Reinhart Koselleck’s sense has been much discussed in conceptual history, but mainly for the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The article documents a post–World War II emergence of the concept of health, from relative anonymity to becoming a key concept, comparable to concepts such as politics, democracy, and culture. While previous research has emphasized conceptual mobility, this article focuses on conceptual aggregation, where the concept of health assembles and assimilates meanings, becoming essential to discourse. This is explained with reference to the development of the welfare state and the political use of a positive, expanded health concept. The article utilizes a collocation analysis of Norwegian digitized newspapers 1950–2010, culled from the uniquely extensive database of the Norwegian National Library.

08.08.2022: Leder - Medisinstudiet må gi legene kunnskaper, verdier og verktøy til å arbeide mot klimaendringene.

The Harms of Constructing Addiction as a Chronic, Relapsing Brain Disease, an article from American Journal of Public Health, Vol 112 Issue S2

Background: Patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) enable patients to access their health records through a secure connection over the internet. Although previous studies of patient experiences with this kind of service have shown that a majority of users are positive toward PAEHRs, little is known about why some patients occasionally or regularly choose not to use them. A better understanding of why patients may choose not to make use of digital health services such as PAEHRs is important for further development and implementation of services aimed at having patients participate in digital health services. Objective: The objective of the study was to explore patients’ rationales for not embracing online access to health records. Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 40 patients in a department of internal medicine in a Norwegian hospital in 2018-2019. Interview transcripts were subjected to thematic content analysis. In this paper, we focus on the subject of nonuse of PAEHRs. Results: We identified 8 different rationales that study participants had for not embracing PAEHRs. When patients reflected on why they might not use PAEHRs, they variously explained that they found PAEHRs unnecessary (they did not feel they were useful), impersonal (they preferred oral dialogue with their doctor or nurse over written information), incomprehensible (the records contained medical terminology and explanations that were hard to understand), misery oriented (the records solely focused on disease), fear provoking (reading the records could cause unwanted emotional reactions), energy demanding (making sense of the records added to the work of being a patient), cumbersome (especially among patients who felt they did not have the necessary digital competence), and impoverishing (they were skeptical about the digital transformation of individual and social life). Conclusions: It is often assumed that the barriers to PAEHR use are mostly practical (such as lack of hardware and access to the internet). In this study, we showed that patients may have many other valid reasons for not wanting to adopt this kind of service. The results can help guide how PAEHRs and other digital health services are promoted and presented to patients, and they may suggest that the goal of a given new digital health service should not necessarily be full uptake by all patients. Rather, one should recognize that different patients might prefer and benefit from different kinds of “analog” and digital health services.

BACKGROUND Patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) enable patients to access their health records through a secure connection over the internet. Although previous studies of patient experiences with this kind of service have shown that a majority of users are positive toward PAEHRs, little is known about why some patients occasionally or regularly choose not to use them. A better understanding of why patients may choose not to make use of digital health services such as PAEHRs is important for further development and implementation of services aimed at having patients participate in digital health services. OBJECTIVE The objective of the study was to explore patients’ rationales for not embracing online access to health records. METHODS Qualitative interviews were conducted with 40 patients in a department of internal medicine in a Norwegian hospital in 2018-2019. Interview transcripts were subjected to thematic content analysis. In this paper, we focus on the subject of nonuse of PAEHRs. RESULTS We identified 8 different rationales that study participants had for not embracing PAEHRs. When patients reflected on why they might not use PAEHRs, they variously explained that they found PAEHRs unnecessary (they did not feel they were useful), impersonal (they preferred oral dialogue with their doctor or nurse over written information), incomprehensible (the records contained medical terminology and explanations that were hard to understand), misery oriented (the records solely focused on disease), fear provoking (reading the records could cause unwanted emotional reactions), energy demanding (making sense of the records added to the work of being a patient), cumbersome (especially among patients who felt they did not have the necessary digital competence), and impoverishing (they were skeptical about the digital transformation of individual and social life). CONCLUSIONS It is often assumed that the barriers to PAEHR use are mostly practical (such as lack of hardware and access to the internet). In this study, we showed that patients may have many other valid reasons for not wanting to adopt this kind of service. The results can help guide how PAEHRs and other digital health services are promoted and presented to patients, and they may suggest that the goal of a given new digital health service should not necessarily be full uptake by all patients. Rather, one should recognize that different patients might prefer and benefit from different kinds of “analog” and digital health services.

04.11.2019: Essay - Den stadig krympende mannsandelen på medisinstudiet vekker stor bekymring i de medisinske fakultetene landet over.

Medical certificates influence the distribution of economic benefits in welfare states; however, the qualitative aspects of these texts remain largely unexplored. The present study is the first systematic investigation done of these texts. Our aim was to investigate how GPs select and mediate information about their patients’ health and how they support their conclusions about illness, functioning and fitness for work in medical certificates. We performed a textual analysis of thirty-three medical certificates produced by general practitioners (GP) in Norway at the request of the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV).The certificates were subjected to critical reading using the combined analytic methods of narratology and linguistics. Some of the medical information was unclear, ambiguous, and possibly misleading. Evaluations of functioning related to illness were scarce or absent, regardless of diagnosis, and, hence, the basis of working incapacity was unclear. Voices in the text frequently conflated, obscuring the source of speaker. In some documents, the expert’s subtle use of language implied doubts about the claimant’s credibility, but explicit advocacy also occurred. GPs show little insight into their patients’ working lives, but rather than express uncertainty and incompetence, they may resort to making too absolute and too general statements about patients’ working capacity, and fail to report thorough assessments. A number of the texts in our material may not function as sufficient or reliable sources for making decisions regarding social benefits. Certificates as these may be deficient for several reasons, and textual incompetence may be one of them. Physicians in Norway receive no systematic training in professional writing. High-quality medical certificates, we believe, might be economical in the long term: it might increase the efficiency with which NAV processes cases and save costs by eliminating the need for unnecessary and expensive specialist reports. Moreover, correct and coherent medical certificates can strengthen legal protection for claimants. Eventually, reducing advocacy in these documents may contribute to a fairer evaluation of whether claimants are eligible for disability benefits or not. Therefore, we believe that professional writing skills should be validated as an important part of medical practice and should be integrated in medical schools and in further education as a discipline in its own right, preferably involving humanities professors.