PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

J Pierret

Publications and source records attributed to J Pierret.

9 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2000

Everyday life with AIDS/HIV: surveys in the social sciences.

Research on persons infected with HIV is critically assessed by using the notions developed in the sociology of illness. Has this research stimulated new questions or led to reformulations in research paradigms? Methodological problems related to data collection are pointed out, namely: the recruitment of HIV-positive participants for such studies and the stance they adopt during interviews. The contributions made by studies that have focused on adjustment strategies or resorted to the notions of stigmatization, identity and illness trajectory are also discussed. In conclusion, questions are raised about what implications the new HIV/AIDS treatments will have on this field of social science research.

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome↗
PubMed1999

[Inserm ad hoc committee: Recommendations for the management of women with a genetic risk for developing cancer of the breast and/or the ovary].

BACKGROUND: Almost 10% of breast and ovarian cancer are inherited, and the majority are linked to BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations. Despite the uncertainty, consensus guidelines were defined to assist practitioners', and patients' decisions about the health care decisions to be made. METHODOLOGY: The ad hoc committee consisted of 14 experts designated by the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research. They all attended eleven workshops at which a systematic analytical review of more than 3,500 articles was carried out. Five additional experts critically analyzed the first version of the report. PROCESS: Two thresholds were defined on a probability scale giving the risk of developing breast or ovarian cancer, to serve as a means of deciding as whether an intervention is worthwhile. The first threshold is that above which an intervention can be envisaged or recommended; the second is that under which an intervention can be ruled out; between the two, the decision has to be made on a each by case basis. SCREENING AND PREVENTIVE STRATEGIES ANALYZED: About breast cancer: 1) hormonal interventions; 2) primary prevention (diet, family planning and chemoprevention); 3) screening (breast self-examination, clinician breast examination, tumor markers, imaging); 4) prophylactic mastectomy. About ovarian cancer: 1) hormonal stimulation; 2) screening (clinical screening, ultrasound and tumor markers); 3) prophylactic oophorectomy. MAIN CONCLUSIONS: With each strategy the following points were dealt with: the information to be delivered to the consult and, the procedure and the indications. The committee's opinion about BRCA mutation screening is that population-based or even large scale implementation are not justified. The committee feels that specific management is indispensable and advocates the use of defined and evaluated procedures, and involvement in clinical trials.

Age Factors↗
PubMed1999

[INSERM-FNCLCC collective expertise. Recommendations for medical management of women with genetic risk of developing breast and/or ovarian cancer].

BACKGROUND: Almost 10% of breast and ovarian cancer are inherited, and the majority are linked to BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations. Despite the uncertainty in the management of women gene carriers, consensus guidelines were defined to assist practitioners', and patients' decisions about the health care decisions to be made. METHODOLOGY: The Ad Hoc Committee consisted of 14 experts designated by the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research. They all attended eleven workshops at which a systematic analytical review of more than 3500 articles was carried out. Five additional experts critically analysed the first version of the report. CRITERIA AND DECISION PROCESS: Two thresholds were defined on a probability scale giving the risk of developing breast or ovarian cancer, to serve as a means of deciding as whether an intervention is worthwhile. The first threshold is that above which an intervention can be envisaged or recommended; the second is that under which an intervention can be ruled out; between the two, the decision has to be made on a each by case basis. STRATEGIES ANALYZED: About breast cancer: 1) hormonal interventions; 2) primary prevention (diet, family planning and chemoprevention); 3) screening (breast self-examination, clinician breast examination, tumor markers, imaging); 4) prophylactic mastectomy. About ovarian cancer: 1) hormonal stimulation; 2) screening (clinical screening, ultrasound and tumor markers); 3) prophylactic oophorectomy. MAIN CONCLUSIONS: With each strategy the following points were dealt with; the information to be delivered to the Consultant, the procedure and the indications. In addition, the Committee's opinion about BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation screening is that population-based or even large scale implementation are not justified. Although no scientific evidence is available, the Committee feels that specific management is indispensable and advocates the use of defined and evaluated procedures, and involvement in clinical trials.

BRCA1 Protein↗
PubMed1998

Recommendations for medical management of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: the French National Ad Hoc Committee.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Almost 10% of breast and ovarian cancers are familial, and the majority are linked to BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations. Despite uncertainty about the management of female gene carriers, consensus guidelines have been established to assist practitioners and consultees in making health care decisions. METHODOLOGY: The Ad Hoc Committee was composed of 14 experts appointed by the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research, all of whom attended eleven workshops at which more than 3500 articles were systematically analyzed. Five additional experts critically analysed the first version of the report. CRITERIA AND DECISION PROCESS: On a probability scale of the risk of developing breast or ovarian cancers, two thresholds were defined for use in determining whether an intervention would be worthwhile. The first is the threshold above which an intervention can be envisaged or recommended, and the second is the one below which an intervention can be ruled out; between the two, the decision has to be made on a case-by-case basis. SCREENING AND PREVENTIVE STRATEGIES ANALYZED: With respect to breast cancer: 1) hormonal interventions; 2) primary prevention (diet, family planning and chemoprevention); 3) screening (breast self-examination, clinician breast examination, tumor markers, imaging); 4) prophylactic mastectomy. With respect to ovarian cancer: 1) hormonal stimulation; 2) screening (clinical screening, ultrasound and tumor markers); 3) prophylactic oophorectomy. MAIN CONCLUSIONS: For each strategy the following points were addressed: the information to be given to the consultee, the procedure and the indications. In addition, the committee's opinion about BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation screening is that population-based, or even large-scale, implementation are not justified. Although no scientific evidence is available, the committee feels that specific management is indispensable and advocates the use of defined and evaluated procedures, and participation in clinical trials.

Breast Neoplasms↗
PubMed1998

[INSERM-FNCLCC collective expert's report. Recommendations for management of women having a genetic risk of developing breast and/or ovarian cancer. National Federation of Centers of the Fight Against Cancer].

BACKGROUND: Almost 10% of breast and ovarian cancer are inherited, and the majority are linked to BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations. Despite the uncertainty, consensus guidelines were defined to assist practitioners', and patients' decisions about the health care decisions to be made. METHODOLOGY: The Ad Hoc Committee consisted of 14 experts designated by the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research. They all attended eleven workshops at which a systematic analytical review of more than 3500 articles was carried out. Five additional experts critically analyzed the first version of the report. PROCESS: Two thresholds were defined on a probability scale giving the risk of developing breast or ovarian cancer, to serve as a means of deciding as whether an intervention is worthwhile. The first threshold is that above which an intervention can be envisaged or recommended; the second is that under which an intervention can be ruled out; between the two, the decision has to be made on a each by case basis. SCREENING AND PREVENTIVE STRATEGIES ANALYZED: About breast cancer: 1) hormonal interventions; 2) primary prevention (diet, family planning and chemoprevention); 3) screening (breast self-examination, clinician breast examination, tumor markers, imaging); 4) prophylactic mastectomy. About ovarian cancer: 1) hormonal stimulation; 2) screening (clinical screening, ultrasound and tumor markers); 3) prophylactic oophorectomy. MAIN CONCLUSIONS: With each strategy the following points were dealt with: the information to be delivered to the consultant, the procedure and the indications. The Committee's opinion about BRCA mutation screening is that population-based or even large scale implementation are not justified. The Committee feels that specific management is indispensable and advocates the use of defined and evaluated procedures, and involvement in clinical trials.

Anticarcinogenic Agents↗
PubMed1989

The construction of a social phenomenon: AIDS in the French press.

The analysis of articles about AIDS published from 1982 to 1986 in 6 national French dailies sheds light on how the 'AIDS social phenomenon' was constructed during this period. The press passed information about this new disease from the medical domain into the public sphere. As the press circulated AIDS news (information) among various groups and emphasized the rapid extension and catastrophic proportions of this unforeseen 'epidemic', AIDS became an issue around which social relations polarized. The processes at work during the four phases of the construction of this social phenomenon are described: naming, comparisons with past epidemics, popularization of medical knowledge and symbolic values attributed to it, competition over claims to discoveries and patents, discourses about the other (in particular, homosexuals). During each phase, a concept or fact related to progress in the medical sciences served as the basis for attempts to make a meaning out of this new disease.

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome↗
PubMed1988

[Not Available].

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome↗
PubMed1985

The social construction of the patient: patients and illnesses in other ages.

The way individual conceptions and experiences of illnesses are socially constructed is shown through the historical analysis of diseases, particularly epidemics. For centuries, sickness did not clearly correspond to what we now call the patient status. Several factors were necessary for this social status to develop. Sickness had to cease being a mass phenomenon. Medicine had to become capable of providing efficacious treatment and of taking the sick out of the custody of religious institutions. Through social legislation, the notions of illness and of health had to be related to the world of work. Owing to the first two factors, sickness was transformed from a collective into an individual affair, from a way of dying into a way of living. Once related to production processes and medical custody, it became the individual's social condition.

Disease Outbreaks↗