Does “difficult patient” status contribute to de facto demedicalization? The case of borderline personality disorder
Sandra H. Sulzer
Social Science & Medicine, 2015, vol. 142, issue C, 82-89
Abstract:
A diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) often signals the quintessential “difficult patient” status to clinicians, with at least one scholar arguing the condition itself was created to name and group difficult patients. While patients who are deemed difficult are often dispreferred for care, does this have an impact on their overall status as medicalized patients who have successfully achieved a sick role? This study relies on (n = 22) in-depth interviews with mental health clinicians in the United States from 2012 to evaluate how they describe patients with BPD, how the diagnosis of BPD affects the treatment clinicians are willing to provide, and the implications for patients. My findings suggest patients with BPD are routinely labeled “difficult,” and subsequently routed out of care through a variety of direct and indirect means. This process creates a functional form of demedicalization where the actual diagnosis of BPD remains de jure medicalized, but the de facto or treatment component of medicalization is harder to secure for patients.
Keywords: USA; Borderline personality disorder; Medicalization; Difficult patient; Mental health; Access to care; Doctor/patient communication (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2015
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (6)
Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953615300605
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
HTML/Text
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:socmed:v:142:y:2015:i:c:p:82-89
Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional
http://www.elsevier. ... _01_ooc_1&version=01
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.08.008
Access Statistics for this article
Social Science & Medicine is currently edited by Ichiro (I.) Kawachi and S.V. (S.V.) Subramanian
More articles in Social Science & Medicine from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().