PubMed · 11017900
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
B A Van Houten, J Phelps, M Barnes, W A Suk. 2000. Evaluating scientific impact.. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.108-a392
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The origins of environmental medicine date back more than 2000 years. The increasing incidence of environmental disease together with successful research into their etiology and pathogenesis have caused an impetus for this discipline in quantitative terms. A growing interest of patients, but also of politicians and parts of the industry in actual or suspected environmental risk factors for health have given rise to controversies--rendering the development of a rational, quality-oriented environmental medicine difficult, if not impossible. Given these controversies surrounding environmental health issues formal demarcations between the traditional disciplines (environmental) epidemiology, social medicine, occupational medicine, and environmental medicine become obsolete. Instead, a common agenda with respect to research, quality assurance, risk communication, and prevention as well as patient counselling and policy advising calls for a conceptual and institutional integration of these disciplines.
Concerning the syndromes in environmental medicine, like Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS), Idiopathic Environmental Intolerances (IEI), Sick Building Syndrome (SBS), Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), Candida Syndrome (CS), and Burnout Syndrome (BS), scientific knowledge in etiology, pathology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, therapy, prevention and prognosis is still lacking until now. A critical comparison shows that it is still impossible to find a scientifically satisfying delimitation. Syndromes in environmental medicine show clinical similarities to somatoform disorders. Furthermore, there are the following possible explanations for the existence of these syndromes: Firstly, they may be a complex interaction of environmental impacts, individual predispositions, psychological influences, as well as processes of mental perception and interpretation. Secondly, they may be an effect of distress influenced by culture and social structures and/or thirdly, they may be an latrogenic determination. A more comprehensive characterisation which better considers the complex clinical manifestations is overdue. Although there are neither scientifically validated procedures for diagnosis or therapy nor prophylactic measures, a hardly comprehensible number of partly unvalidated methods is in practical use. Until the syndromes are not finally defined the terms for the syndromes should not be applied to a certain disease. Despite all uncertainities in the evaluation of syndromes in environmental medicine, physicians have the duty to take the affected persons' problems seriously.