Abstract
Swallow explores the role of low-technological cognitive screening tools in the process of diagnosing Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in everyday practice, at a time when focus in research is on developing innovative diagnostic methods, including biomarker technologies. The chapter facilitates a discussion of the value of cognitive screening tools in the clinic, demonstrating that the tools emerge as provisional, yet privileged devices for navigating uncertainty through the tinkering work of clinicians. However, as the tools are adopted in frameworks promoting early diagnosis, such as the National Dementia Commissioning for Quality and Innovation Framework (CQUIN), this tinkering work is constrained. The chapter concludes by reflecting on how the case of the CQUIN might inform the ways in which diagnostic innovation overall is dealt with responsibly.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Atkinson, P. 1984. Training for Certainty. Social Science & Medicine 19: 949–956.
Berg, M. 1996. Practices of Reading and Writing: The Constitutive Role of the Patient Record in Medical Work. Sociology of Health & Illness 18: 499–524.
Berg, M. 1998. Order (s) and Disorder (s): Of Protocols and Medical Practices. In Differences in Medicine. Unravelling Practices, Techniques and Bodies, eds. M. Berg and A. Mol, 226–247. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Chaufan, C., B. Hollister, J. Nazareno, and P. Fox. 2012. Medical Ideology as a Double-Edged Sword: The Politics of Cure and Care in the Making of Alzheimer’s Disease. Social Science and Medicine 74(5): 788–795.
Dodier, N. 1998. Clinical Practice and Procedures in Occupational Medicine: A Study of the Framing of Individuals. In Differences in Medicine. Unravelling Practices, Techniques and Bodies, eds. M. Berg and A. Mol, 53–86. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Dubois, B., H.H. Feldman, C. Jacova, S.T. Dekosky, P. Barberger-Gateau, J. Cummings, and A. Delacourte, et al. 2007. Research Criteria for the Diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease: Revising the NINCDS-ADRDA Criteria. Lancet Neurology 6: 734–746.
Dussauge, I., C-F. Helgesson, and F. Lee. 2015. On the Omnipresence, Diversity, and Elusiveness of Values in the Life Sciences and Medicine. In Value Practices in the Life Sciences and Medicine, eds. I. Dussauge et al., 1–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Goffman, E. 1969. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: Penguin Press.
Gubrium, F. 1986. Oldtimer’s and Alzheimer’s: The Descriptive Organisation of Senility. Greenwich: JAI Press.
Hardy, J. 2006. A Hundred Years of Alzheimer’s Disease Research. Neuron 52: 3–13.
Ismail, Z., T.K. Rajji, and K.L. Shulman. 2010. Brief Cognitive Screening Instruments: An Update. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 25: 111–120.
Lyman, K. 1989. Bringing the Social Back In: A Critique of the Biomedicalization of Dementia. Gerontologist 29(5): 597–605.
Meyer, G.D., F. Shapiro, H. Vanderstichele, E. Vanmechelen, S. Engelborghs, P.P. De Deyn, and E. Coart, et al. 2010. Diagnosis-Independent Alzheimer Disease Biomarker Signature in Cognitively Normal Elderly People. Archives of Neurology 67: 949–956.
Mol, A. 1998. Missing Links, Making Links: The Performance of Some Atherosclerosis. In Differences in Medicine. Unravelling Practices, Techniques and Bodies, eds. M. Berg and A. Mol, 144–166. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Mol, A. 2002. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Mol, A., I. Moser, and J. Pols. 2010. Care: Putting Practice into Theory. In Care in Practice: On Tinkering in Clinics, Homes and Farms, eds. A. Mol., I. Moser and J. Pols., 7–27. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag.
Rajah, M.N., S. Bastianette, K. Bromley-Brits, R. Cools, M. D’Esposito, C.L. Grady, and J. Poirier, et al. 2009. Biological Changes Associated with Healthy Versus Pathological Aging: A Symposium Review. Ageing Research Reviews 8: 1–7.
Rose, N. 1998. Governing Risky Individuals: The Role of Psychiatry in New Regimes of Control. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 5: 177–195.
Stilgoe, J., R. Owen, and P. Macnaghten. 2013. Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation. Research Policy 42: 1568–1580.
Timmermans, S., and M. Berg. 2003. The Practice of Medical Technology. Sociology of Health & Illness 25: 97–114.
Ulucanlar, S., A. Faulkner, S. Peirce, and G. Elwyn. 2013. Technology Identity: The Role of Sociotechnical Representations in the Adoption of Medical Devices. Social Science & Medicine 98: 95–105.
Woolgar, S., and J. Lezaun. 2013. The Wrong Bin Bag: A Turn to Ontology in Science and Technology Studies? Social Studies of Science 43: 321–340.
Zetterberg, H. 2011. New Diagnostic Criteria for Alzheimer’s Disease. Biomarkers in Medicine 5: 407–409.
Acknowledgements
This chapter is based on doctoral research entitled ‘The Role of Instruments for Screening Cognitive Function and Alzheimer’s Disease: A Sociological Exploration’, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Swallow, J. (2016). Understanding Cognitive Screening Tools: Navigating Uncertainty in Everyday Clinical Practice. In: Boenink, M., van Lente, H., Moors, E. (eds) Emerging Technologies for Diagnosing Alzheimer's Disease. Health, Technology and Society. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-54097-3_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-54097-3_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-54096-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-54097-3
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)