Talk:Chronic condition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Chronic (medicine))
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Should[edit]

Should addiction be added as another example of a chronic

Saaraleigh 18:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


Or should addiction be added as an example of a genetic disease?

Or should addiction be added as an example of a social disease or simply a genetic lack of resolve and personal responsibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.34.254 (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Should PREGNANCY be listed as a chronic condition? Surely not!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.16.226.107 (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The[edit]

The section on the use of "chronic" metaphorically should be removed. The work "chronic" is from the Greek "chronos" meaning "time". The word now is defined as follows by Merriam-Websters.

"1 a: marked by long duration or frequent recurrence : not acute <chronic indigestion> <chronic experiments> b: suffering from a chronic disease <the special needs of chronic patients>2 a: always present or encountered; especially : constantly vexing, weakening, or troubling <chronic petty warfare> b: being such habitually <a chronic grumbler>"

As always, the first definition in a dictionary is the more specialized definition, but even it is not confined to illness (e.g., chronic experiments). The second defintion implies an incredibly generalized meaning.

"Chronic inflation" is using defintion 2a of the word chronic. Please delete the entire section. This has nothing to do with metaphor.

Move?[edit]

Should this page be moved to Chronic disease? It currently starts "A chronic disease is..." Biosthmors (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Lay understanding[edit]

To me, as a doctor, "chronic" does, indeed, mean "long-standing; long duration".

Many people, however, use the word to mean something like "bad; worse than I'd expect; severe". So when a doctor refers to a chronic pain, they mean one that has gone on for a long time (or is likely to do so); a patient may just use the word to emphasise the pain's severity.

I don't know how or whether to reflect this in this article.

--peter_english (talk) 14:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Lyme Disease[edit]

As far as I know Lyme Disease is not recognised as a chronic disease by the medical community. Is this correct? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.160.77.185 (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Human only?[edit]

Is there a reason the intro states chronic diseases are a "human" health condition? Although the examples are slanted towards humans, I would assume that a chronic disease is based on the time of the illness, not the species. SabarCont 08:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Three-fold classification?[edit]

Does the paragraph

In medicine, the opposite of chronic is acute. A chronic course is further distinguished from a recurrent course; recurrent diseases relapse repeatedly, with periods of remission in between.

hint at a three-fold classification of diseases: chronic/acute/recurrent? 86.132.220.226 (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 2 March 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 10:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)



Chronic (medicine)Chronic condition – According to WP:TITLEFORMAT, nouns and noun phrases are preferable to other parts of speech, such as adjectives, for titles. Wiktionary says "chronic" can be a noun, outside of the slang term for marijuana, but it provides no examples of this. Additionally, WP:NATURAL supports the move. I chose "Chronic condition" since it's currently bolded in the lede, though some existing redirects would work just as well, such as Chronic disease, Chronic disorder, and Chronic illness. --BDD (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I conditionally support this move, as the title is much more natural sounding. I think most things described by chronic, including symptoms, signs and diseases, can be adequately described as a "condition". --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. If the article was/were about the term itself, the current title would fit. However, the test of the article bar a sentence of two is about chronic conditions. (Furthermore, some might consider the current title ambiguous as the chronic is purported to have medicinal uses.) —  AjaxSmack  13:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support in principle and support in practice. I can imagine there being a better title, maybe, but probably not a worse one. I would've guessed that this was talking about some medicine called "chronic". Red Slash 18:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
    • A very good point that I agree with -- "I can imagine there being a better title, maybe, but probably not a worse one". --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Globalize[edit]

Almost every section of this article, save for the first two, is US specific. Even where this is not indicated, most of the sources pertain to research conducted in the US about the US population only. This article is in dire need of a worldwide view, so I'd encourage anybody in a position to provide factually accurate information about chronic conditions in populations outside the US. Thanks 206.132.97.4 (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

JA-Chrodis copyright[edit]

Phinespedia (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Worldwide[edit]

Was thinking of adding a sort of an intro to the epidemiology of chronic conditions around the world more so rather than just having the United States view. What do you guys think? Gurshawnstuteja (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 30 March 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Music1201 talk 00:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)



Chronic conditionChronic Disease and Condition – The current title, Chronic condition, should not be the only thing specified. For one, Chronic disease is the more well known/well understood term worldwide. So, in order to keep this uniformity for the viewers, the name should either include the words Chronic Disease or both terms: conditions and disease. Furthermore, the article itslef refers to disease throughout its page, so it only makes sense to call the page Chronic Disease at the least or, in order to encompass more, Chronic Disease and Conditions. – Gurshawnstuteja (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Gurshawnstuteja: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
oppose Gurshawnstuteja is wrong on several counts and overlooks conditions such as visual impairment. Condition is a broader term. There are a range of terms in widespread use that use condition instead of disease, such as: chronic conditions, long term conditions, long term health conditions. I note the editor requesting the move is subscribed to a Johns Hopkins University course tasked to improve a specific section of the article but hasn't yet made a single contribution to the content of the article itself. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – nom doesn't know thing 1 about WP:TITLE, judging by the over-capitalization. Also per Drchriswilliams above. Dicklyon (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – per Drchriswilliams and Dicklyon above. Unnecessary. Pincrete (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Persistent infection[edit]

should there be a standalone article[1]?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Show us some sources that present this in a way that looks like enough material, and distinct enough from chronic condition, and I'll say yes. Dicklyon (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I do see your point, in terms of ,,,,[2] and [3], my idea sprung up from [4]...(perhaps expanding Post-Ebola virus syndrome is the way to go...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by the Ebola-specific aspects of this discussion. Chronic infections (with persistent infection being a synonym) are a major health issue. Chronic HIV, HCV, HBV come to mind immediately for me, but there are many more. Tuberculosis, malaria, and schistosomiasis illustrate the range, which extends from viruses to bacteria, plasmodia, and worms etc. Chronic infections are interesting because they are generally associated with immune tolerance, and may be associated with fibrosis and chronic inflammation leading to increased cardiovascular and other complications. — soupvector (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
my interest in the Persistent infection article[5][6][7] (and of course[8])sprung-up from what continues to be (IMO) an underestimated response to Ebola/west Africa. Even today the flare-ups continue[9], yet there are lingering questions[10].
While your correct mentioning HIV, HCV, HBV...I wonder why WHO responded (initially) so poorly[11] to Ebola. In any event, I made a note here Talk: Post-Ebola virus syndrome, which I guess will have to do for now...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Institutions like WHO often have dysfunction, and I applaud efforts to help them improve and prepare for the next outbreak. In the context of the current article (which is not Ebola disease focused), I am pretty sure that each of the persistent infections I mentioned kills more people annually than all known Ebola disease cases in history (I have no doubt that the number of Ebola casualties is underestimated, but the same is true of the others). There are many diseases that compete for limited resources. — soupvector (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
yes I agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)