Dag Album

• Johannessen, Lars E. F.; Album, Dag & Rasmussen, Erik Børve (2020). Do nurses rate diseases according to prestige? A survey study. Journal of Advanced Nursing. ISSN 0309-2402. 76(7), s. 1691–1697. doi: 10.1111/jan.14394. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Album, Dag; Johannessen, Lars E. F. & Rasmussen, Erik Børve (2017). Stability and change in disease prestige: A comparative analysis of three surveys spanning a quarter of a century. Social Science and Medicine. ISSN 0277-9536. 180, s. 45–51. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.03.020.
• Haldar, Marit; Engebretsen, Eivind & Album, Dag (2016). Legitimating the illegitimate: How doctors manage their knowledge of the prestige of diseases. Health. ISSN 1363-4593. 20(6), s. 559–577. doi: 10.1177/1363459315596798.
• Johannessen, Lars Emil Fagernes & Album, Dag (2015). Utenfor kroppen: Kulturanalytiske studier av sykdom. I Larsen, Håkon (Red.), Kultursosiologisk forskning. Universitetsforlaget. ISSN 978-82-15-02499-8. s. 143–156.
• Album, Dag & Engebretsen, Eivind (2013). Sykdomsprestisje. Praktiske grunde. Tidsskrift for kultur og samfunnsvitenskab. ISSN 1902-2271. 7(1-2), s. 85–92.
• Album, Dag (2013). Uformell prioritering i sykehus: nye subprofesjoners betydning. I Molander, Anders & Smeby, Jens Christian (Red.), Profesjonsstudier 2. Universitetsforlaget. ISSN 978-82-15-01931-4. s. 122–129.
• Album, Dag (2010). Den ene undersøkelsen etter den andre. I Album, Dag; Hansen, Marianne Nordli & Widerberg, Karin (Red.), Metodene våre. Eksempler fra samfunnsvitenskapelig forskning. Universitetsforlaget. ISSN 9788215014920. s. 253–271. Vis sammendrag

  Boken presenterer sosiologenes metodearsenal i form av fortellinger fra virkeligheten. Erfarne sosiologer skriver om egne erfaringer. Boken behandler ikke samfunnsvitenskapelig metode i generelle, allmenne, abstrakte termer. Den trekker snarere fram hvordan metoder og metodeutfordringer kommer fram i det konkrete. Forskningsspørsmålene står i sentrum, og det går tydelig fram hvordan metoder er midler til å framskaffe kunnskap, og hvordan bestemte metoder og bruken av dem avgjør hva slags svar eller kunnskap som kan bli produsert. Sammen representerer bidragsyterne et bredt spekter av tema og metodologiske innfallsvinkler.

• Album, Dag (2010). Close strangers: Patient-patient interaction rituals in acute care hospitals. I Jacobsen, Michael Hviid (Red.), The Contemporary Goffman. Routledge. ISSN 978-0-415-99681-5. s. 352–373.
• Album, Dag (2008). Helt alminnelige pasienter. I Tjora, Aksel (Red.), Den moderne pasienten. Gyldendal Akademisk. ISSN 978-82-05-38097-4. s. 157–172.
• Album, Dag & Westin, Steinar (2008). Do diseases have a prestige hierarchy? A survey among physicians and medical students. Social Science and Medicine. ISSN 0277-9536. 66(1), s. 182–188. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.07.003.
• Nørredam, Marie & Album, Dag (2007). Prestige and its significance for medical specialties and diseases. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. ISSN 1403-4948. 35, s. 655–661. doi: 10.1080/14034940701362137. Vis sammendrag

  Aims: The aim of this paper is to review the literature concerning the existence of prestige hierarchies for medical specialities and diseases. Moreover, the implications of prestige for priority setting in healthcare systems are discussed. Methods: The study is based on a review of the literature. Papers were obtained through the National Library of Medicine, PubMed. The search was conducted on 14 July 2005, and included articles from 1950 until that date. The medical subject headings "disease", "illness", and "medical specialities" were combined with the search word "prestige". A total of 183 papers were found. Only studies focusing on prestige hierarchies for medical specialities and diseases were included. The final search identified 20 articles, six of which specifically established hierarchies for medical specialities and diseases. Results: The review documented prestige hierarchies for medical specialities and diseases. Explanatory characteristics behind the distribution of prestige were identified. It was demonstrated that active, specialized, biomedical, and high-technological types of medicine practised on organs in the upper part of the bodies of young or middle-aged people were accorded high levels of prestige. Medicine with the opposite characteristics had low levels of prestige. Conclusions: Medical specialities and diseases differ with regard to prestige. Characteristics related to specialties and diseases determine their prestige. The authors suggest that differences in prestige bear consequences for actual priority setting in healthcare systems, and contend that this should be further investigated.

• Album, Dag & Westin, Steinar (2007). Do diseases have a prestige hierarchy? A survey among psysicans and medical students. Social Science and Medicine. ISSN 0277-9536. 66(e-publikasjon), s. 182–188.
• Album, Dag & Nørredam, Marie (2006). Forskelle og uligheder i sygdom og sundhed - hvilken rolle spiller prestige? I Vallgårda, Signild & Koch, Lene (Red.), Forskel og lighed i sundhed og sygdom. Munksgaard Forlag. ISSN 978-87-628-0577-4. s. 55–69.
• Album, Dag (2002). Parsoniansk frigjørende sosiologi. Yngvar Løchens Idealer og realiteter som eksempel på norsk funksjonalisme. Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning. ISSN 0040-716X. 43(4), s. 569–586. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv

Se alle arbeider i Cristin

• Album, Dag; Hansen, Marianne Nordli & Widerberg, Karin (2010). Metodene våre. Eksempler fra samfunnsvitenskapelig forskning. Universitetsforlaget. ISBN 9788215014920. 320 s. Vis sammendrag

  Boken presenterer sosiologenes metodearsenal i form av fortellinger fra virkeligheten. Erfarne sosiologer skriver om egne erfaringer. Boken behandler ikke samfunnsvitenskapelig metode i generelle, allmenne, abstrakte termer. Den trekker snarere fram hvordan metoder og metodeutfordringer kommer fram i det konkrete. Forskningsspørsmålene står i sentrum, og det går tydelig fram hvordan metoder er midler til å framskaffe kunnskap, og hvordan bestemte metoder og bruken av dem avgjør hva slags svar eller kunnskap som kan bli produsert. Sammen representerer bidragsyterne et bredt spekter av tema og metodologiske innfallsvinkler.

Se alle arbeider i Cristin

• Album, Dag (2016). Skambelagte sykdommer. [Avis]. Dagbladet.
• Album, Dag (2016). Prioritering av sykdommer. [TV]. Lørdagsrevyen NRK.
• Album, Dag (2016). Sykdomshierarkiet.
• Album, Dag (2015). Prestisje i medisinen: Skjult prioritering i sykehusene?
• Album, Dag (2015). Stigmasykdommer og statussykdommer.
• Album, Dag (2014). Uformell prioritering.
• Haldar, Marit; Storm-Mathisen, Ardis; Helle-Valle, Jo Helge & Album, Dag (2012). Grounded Theory og andre empiriskorienterte analysemetoder. Phd-kurs i kvalitative metoder.
• Album, Dag; Hansen, Marianne Nordli & Widerberg, Karin (2010). Introduksjon. I Album, Dag; Hansen, Marianne Nordli & Widerberg, Karin (Red.), Metodene våre. Eksempler fra samfunnsvitenskapelig forskning. Universitetsforlaget. ISSN 9788215014920. s. 7–14. Vis sammendrag

  Boken presenterer sosiologenes metodearsenal i form av fortellinger fra virkeligheten. Erfarne sosiologer skriver om egne erfaringer. Boken behandler ikke samfunnsvitenskapelig metode i generelle, allmenne, abstrakte termer. Den trekker snarere fram hvordan metoder og metodeutfordringer kommer fram i det konkrete. Forskningsspørsmålene står i sentrum, og det går tydelig fram hvordan metoder er midler til å framskaffe kunnskap, og hvordan bestemte metoder og bruken av dem avgjør hva slags svar eller kunnskap som kan bli produsert. Sammen representerer bidragsyterne et bredt spekter av tema og metodologiske innfallsvinkler.

• Album, Dag (2002). The Prestige of Diseases. A Hidden Factor Behind Priority Bias? Vis sammendrag

  Diseases are often employed as units in studies of systems of health care priority settings, especially in discussions about how such systems ought to be, where the seriousness of the diseases and the (cost) effectiveness of treatments are submitted as types of differentiating criteria. There are fewer empirical investigations on how diseases are actually prioritized in current medicine. We know little about how actual and ideal systems of priority differ from one another, and less concerning the principles underlying existing systems of priority. This paper contributes to the discussion about underlying principles by introducing the prestige of diseases as a possible factor influencing actual priorities; it also presents certain empirical findings concerning the prestige hierarchy of diseases. The prestige of diseases has hitherto not been the theme of empirical investigations. The concept of prestige is best known from sociological research on occupations, where theoretical as well as empirical studies of social stratification have long traditions. Here, sociological models are applied to the study of diseases. The prestige of diseases simply means that, according to a shared and intersubjective evaluation among members of the medical culture, certain diseases are considered superior to other diseases. Empirically, the prestige of diseases was first researched eleven years ago, in a survey of Norwegian physicians. They ranked 38 diseases according to how they thought these diseases were ranked in the health care sector. The sample-set was designed to cover diseases of different kinds, including chronic and acute, located in different organs, effective treatment prospects, both men¿s and women¿s diseases. In a recent similar study, the prestige hierarchy of diseases was nearly identical, pointing to a consistent and well-established aspect of medical culture. In both surveys the highest-ranked diseases were heart infarction, leukaemia and brain tumours. The lowest ranked were fibrositis and anxiety neurosis. Among factors that seem to positively influence the level of prestige, are the organs (if any) where the diseases are located, acuteness and lethality, heavy use of technology in and effectiveness of treatment, and age and gender of the typical patient. Some of these criteria are identical to those used in the normative systems mentioned while others are not, suggesting a bias between ideal and actual priority. It is possible that the perceived prestige of diseases influences decision making of many types on many levels of health care. Aggregated, these decisions may determine the actual systems of priority. Thus, shared implicit understandings of the prestige ranking of diseases may affect the priority ranking of the diseases.

• Album, Dag; Benkow, J.; Brofoss, Knut; Brundtland, G.; Buttedahl, A. & Evensen, Stein A. [Vis alle 15 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (1997). Prioritering på ny. Gjennomgang av retninglinjer for prioriteringer innen norsk helsetjeneste. Norges offentlige utredninger.
• Hjellnes, Siv & Album, Dag (1992). Bilder av fengselsbetjenter i ulike rammer: en kvalitativ analyse av fortellinger om å være fengselsbetjent. Hjellnes.
• Album, Dag; Haavelsrud, Magnus & Johnsen, Jon T. (1976). Undervisning om juridiske rettigheter og plikter i skolen. Universitetet i Tromsø, Institutt for samfunnsvitenskap Stensilserie nr. 27.

Se alle arbeider i Cristin