[How information on a patient's social status is gathered. An anthropological analysis of the discourses employed in private medical practice].

BACKGROUND

A number of studies have highlighted differences and even discrimination in health care offer according to social category, and shown that they contribute to the production of inequality. On the other hand, when the health care system treats every patient equally, and does not take personal difficulties into consideration, some authors have suggested inequality "by omission". That is why public health actors at different levels have recommended systematic collection of information on patients' social status. The objective of this article is to analyze data gathering on patients' socio-economic condition and its repercussions.

METHODS

The survey is based on more than 50 semi-structured face-to-face interviews with doctors and dentists in private practice. Their answers were subjected to socio-anthropological analysis.

RESULTS

While some practitioners collect information on patients' social status proactively by systematic interrogation, others proceed indirectly and in accordance with subjective criteria. Quite often, patient status remains ignored, usually due to lack of interest, and less frequently because practitioners wish to guard against any risk of stigmatizing underprivileged patients. Different rationales may explain these attitudes: need to prioritize relevant information, wish to observe equity and equality, determination to refrain from social labeling, desire to protect patient self-esteem and to reinforce the practitioner-patient relationship. When identification does occur, it is essentially justified by a desire to adapt the care pathway to potential socio-economic obstacles.

CONCLUSION

When a patient's social situation is sought out by private doctors and dentists, they are mainly concerned with customizing care pathways by taking financial impediments into close consideration. In most cases, their justifications for asking questions are subjective; by doing so, they inadvertently introduce arbitrariness in an area where the French state endeavors to produce social justice via provisions such as "CMU" ("universal", across the board health coverage). Systematic questioning on a patient's social status can represent a form of supplementary if unconscious symbolic violence toward frequently disqualified persons; what is more, it runs the risk of inducing stereotypes and manifesting prejudice. Only when contextualized does such questioning seem appropriate. On the other hand, when a practitioner misses out on social issues liable to impede care and treatment, he will probably have no "second chance" to address these concerns. Some practitioners have emphasized a need for suitable timing and contextualizing of questions on a patient's social status, and for putting them forward in a climate of trust.