For estimates of prevalence, participants considered the medicalese label to be more prevalent than the lay label (mean for medicalese label = 74.9, SE = 12.7, mean for the lay label = 102.6, SE = 14.9, F (1,49) = 13.93, p<0.001).
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups, where each participant was asked to rate either the medicalese or lay label for a disorder.
For ratings of disease representativeness, participants considered the medicalese label to be more representative of a disease than the lay label (mean for medicalese label = 2.50, SE = .07, mean for the lay label = 2.25, SE = .08, F (1,49) = 9.87, p<0.005).
If any observations are to be made regarding the established medical conditions, it is that the lay label is seen as more serious than the medicalese, indicating a pattern opposite to that previously seen in the literature [19].
This study demonstrates that a medical label for a recently medicalized disorder results in perceptions of increased severity, increased disease representativeness and lower prevalence compared to the same disorder presented in its synonymous, lay label.
In this restricted sample of established medical disorders, there was a significant difference in estimates of prevalence (mean for medicalese label = 105 individuals, mean for lay label = 201 individuals out of 1,000, F (1,49) = 12.31, p<0.005), but no significant difference for ratings of seriousness or disease representativeness.
For all vignettes, generic lay labels were not associated with stigma, but also rarely had a counter stigma effect.
When examining the recently medicalized disorders in print media, we see a six-fold increase in the ratio of medicalese to lay labeling, where we see only a 1.2 fold increase in the same ratio for recognized medical disorders.
Given that it is difficult to consider male pattern baldness and a heart attack as comparable in severity, it is possible that the difference between medicalese and lay labels is only apparent in disorders that are not considered to be very serious.
In order to validate the category assignment of these disorders, a Lexis Nexis search was conducted sampling from 1997 and 2007 for frequency of use of both the medial and lay labels for each disorder in popular news media (defined as print media publicly available in North America).
Surely my skills lay in labelling Epindorff tubes and I had little to take to a job in the 'real world'?
