A Utilitarian Perspective of Social and Medical Contributions to Three Illustrative Conditions, and Recent UK NHS Policy Initiatives

Background: To date debate concerning the relative merits of social and medical sciences has been largely academic. Aims: To outline and critically appraise a utilitarian approach to mental health research that reflects a critical realist perspective. Method: Consideration of the relative utility of differing approaches to illustrative ‘‘psychiatric’’ disorders, and recent policy initiatives. Results: Socially relevant outcomes of Bipolar Affective Disorder are determined by influences that operate independently of the characteristic instability of mood. There is now a highly specific and effective psychological treatment for Panic Disorder. Its benefits are still not fully exploited because of continuing lay and professional focus upon the condition’s social manifestations. Great numbers of people presenting in primary care are unhelpfully caused to adopt the role of ‘‘patient’’ due to practices limiting the professional response to a medical one. Such practices reflect public and professional perceptions of the nature of ‘‘mental health difficulties’’ much more than they do the achievements of medicine. Recent policy-supporting initiatives influencing UK NHS mental health services are much more likely to be supported by social sciences than by medical research. Conclusions: There is considerable scope for a contribution to applied mental health research from frameworks and methodologies that are rooted in a social sciences perspective.

Reconfiguring or reproducing intra-professional boundaries? Specialist expertise, generalist knowledge and the ‘modernization’ of the medical workforce

Efforts to ‘modernize’ the clinical workforce of the English National Health Service have sought to reconfigure the responsibilities of professional groups in pursuit of more effective, joined-up service provision. Such efforts have met resistance from professions eager to protect their jurisdictions, deploying legitimacy claims familiar from the insights of the sociology of professions. Yet to date few studies of professional boundaries have grounded these insights in the specific context of policy challenges to the inter- and intra-professional division of labour, in relation the medical profession and other health-related occupations. In this paper we address this gap by considering the experience of newly instituted general practitioners (family physicians) with a special interest (GPSIs) in genetics, introduced to improve genetics knowledge and practice in primary care. Using qualitative data from four comparative case studies, we discuss how an established intra-professional division of labour within medicine—between clinical geneticists and GPs—was opened, negotiated and reclosed in these sites. We discuss the contrasting attitudes towards the nature of genetics knowledge and its application of GPSIs and geneticists, and how these were used to advance conflicting visions of what the nascent GPSI role should involve. In particular, we show how the claims to knowledge of geneticists and GPSIs interacted with wider policy pressures to produce a rather more conservative redistribution of power and responsibility across the intra-professional boundary than the rhetoric of modernization might suggest.