Data from: What is a disease? Perspectives of the public, health professionals, and legislators
No Thumbnail Available
Restricted Availability
Date
2012-10-19, 2012-10-19
Persistent identifier of the Data Catalogue metadata
Creator/contributor
Editor
Journal title
Journal volume
Publisher
Publication Type
dataset
dataset
dataset
Peer Review Status
Repositories
Access rights
Open
ISBN
ISSN
Description
Objective: To assess the perception of diseases and the willingness to use public tax revenue for their treatment among relevant stakeholders. Design: A population-based, cross-sectional mailed survey. Setting: Finland Participants: 3 000 laypeople, 1 500 doctors, 1 500 nurses (randomly identified from the databases of the Finnish Population Register, the Finnish Medical Association and the Finnish Nurses Association), and all 200 parliament members. Main outcome measures: Respondents' perspectives on a 5-point Likert scale on two claims on 60 states of being: "[This state of being] is a disease"; and "[This state of being] should be treated with public tax revenue". Results: Of the 6 200 individuals approached, 3 280 (53%) responded. Of the 60 states of being, ≥80% of respondents considered 12 to be diseases (Likert scale responses of "4" and "5") and five not to be diseases (Likert scale responses of "1" and "2"). There was considerable variability in most states, and great variability in ten (≥20% of respondents of all groups considered it a disease and ≥20% rejected as a disease). Doctors were more inclined to consider states of being as diseases than laypeople; nurses and parliament members were intermediate (p<0.001), but all groups showed large variability. Responses to the two claims were very strongly correlated (r = 0.96 [95% CI: 0.94-0.98]; p<0.001). Conclusions: There is large disagreement among the public, health professionals, and legislators regarding the classification of states of being as diseases and whether their management should be publicly funded. Understanding attitudinal differences can help to enlighten social discourse on a number of contentious public policy issues.