Basic Premises of Family-Oriented Primary Care

Utilizing the Family as a Resource
  • Susan H. McDaniel
  • Thomas L. Campbell
  • David B. Seaburn

Abstract

Physicians are involved daily in managing and treating the illnesses of patients who are linked with, joined to, and living within a larger context—the family. In fact, despite the popular attention given recently to singles living alone or with a nonfamily roommate, still a majority of the American population make their home with other family members (2). The family remains the most basic relational unit in society.

Keywords

Family Therapy American Family Basic Premise Biopsychosocial Model Beta Adrenergic Blockage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Thomas L: The Lives of a Cell: Notes of a Biology Watcher. New York, Bantam Books, Inc., 1974, p. 147.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    U.S. Bureau of the Census: Population Characteristics. Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Doherty W, Baird M: Family Therapy and Family Medicine. New York, Guilford Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    U.S. Bureau of the Census: Families, Marital Status, and Living Arrangements. Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1984.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    U.S. Bureau of the Census: Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1987, 107th edition. Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Report of the North American Primary Care Research Group (NAPCRG) Committee on Standard Terminology: A Glossary for Primary Care. Presented at the Annual Meeting of NAPCRG, Williamsburg, VA, March 1977.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Engel GL: The need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine. Science 1977; 196: 129–136.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McKeown T: The Role of Medicine: Dream, Mirage, or Nemesis. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Saba G, Fink DL: Systems medicine and systems therapy: A call to a natural collaboration. J Strat Sys Ther 1985; 4 (2): 15–31.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Medalie JH: A family-oriented approach in primary care, in Noble J (ed.): Primary Care and the Practice of Medicine. Boston, Little, Brown and Co., 1976, pp. 53–63.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Medalie JH (ed.): Family Medicine: Principles and Applications. Baltimore, MD, The Williams and Wilkins Co., 1978.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Keeney BP: The Aesthetics of Change. New York, Guilford Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dym B: The cybernetics of physical illness. Fam Proc 1987; 26: 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Campbell T, McDaniel S: Applying a systems approach to common medical problems in Crouch M, and Roberts L (eds.). The Family in Medical Practice: A Family Systems Primer. New York, Springer-Verlag, 1987, pp. 112–139.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carmichael LP: Forty families-a search for the family in family medicine. Fam Syst Med 1983; 1 (1): 12–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Christiansen CE: Making the family the unit of care: What does it mean? Fam Med 1983; 15 (6): 207–209.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schwenk TC, Hughes CC: The family as patient in family medicine: Rhetoric or reality? Soc Sci Med 1983; 17: 1–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schmidt DD: The family as the unit of medical care. J Fam Prac 1978; 7 (2): 303–313.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ransom DC: On why it is useful to say “the family is the unit of care” in family medicine: Comment on Carmichael’s essay. Fam Syst Med 1983; 1 (1): 17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Frank SH: The unit of care revisited. J Fam Pract 1985; 21 (2): 145–148.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bewley RB, Bland JM. Academic performance and social factors related to cigarette smoking by school children. Br J Preu Soc Med 1977; 31: 18–24.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hartz A, Giefer E, Rimm AA. Relative importance of the effect of family environment and heredity on obesity. Ann Hum Genet 1977; 41: 185–193.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Doherty WA, Campbell TL: Families and Health. Beverly Hill, CA, Sage, 1988.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Carter EA, McGoldrick M (eds.): The Family Life Cycle: A Framework for Family Therapy. New York, Gardner Press, Inc., 1980.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Watzlawick P, Weakland J, Fisch C: Change: Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution. New York, WW. Norton and Company, Inc., 1974.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Baker L, Minuchin S, Rosman B: The use of beta adrenergic blockage in the treatment of psychosomatic aspects of juvenile diabetes mellitus, in Snart A (ed.): Advances in Beta Adrenergic Blockage Therapy. Princeton, NJ, Exerpta Medica, 1974, pp. 67–80.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Baker L, Minuchin S, Milman L, et. al.: Psychosomatic aspects of juvenile diabetes mellitus: A progress report. Mod Prob Paediatr 1975; 12: 332–343.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Minuchin S, Bosman BL, Baker L: Psychosomatic Families. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987, pp. 21–50.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Engel GL: The clinical application of the biopsychosocial model. Am J Psychiatry 1980; 137: 535–544.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Doherty WJ, Baird MA: Developmental levels in family-centered medical care. Fam Med 1986; 18 (3): 153–156.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Doherty WA, Baird MA, Becker LA: Family Medicine: The Maturing of a Discipline. New York, Haworth Press, 1986.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan H. McDaniel
    • 1
  • Thomas L. Campbell
    • 1
  • David B. Seaburn
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Medicine and Highland Hospital, Jacob B. Holler Family Medicine CenterUniversity of RochesterRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations