Review of

 Health Psychology: a textbook

Author: Jane Ogden

Publisher & Date: Open University Press United Kingdom 2000

By Paul B. Schlosberg

Commentary:

The author Jane Ogden is a professor in the Department of Psychology at The University of Surrey in the United Kingdom.  Professor Ogden is a reader in health psychology at Guy’s, King’s, and St. Thomas’s School of Medicine, University of London.  In addition to Health Psychology: a textbook, she has written three other books, including The Psychology of Eating: from healthy to disordered behavior, The Myth of Dieting Explained and Health and the Construction of the Individual.  Ogden also has written scores of peer-reviewed academic papers, and her primary areas of research interest are health psychology, eating behavior and obesity, women’s health, and communications between patients and doctors.

Health Psychology: a textbook by Jane Ogden is a theory and research-based textbook for use in university graduate and upper level classes in health psychology.  The book is intended to cover a complete course in health psychology. 

Included in Ogden’s book are:

·Extensively researched comparative studies to prove, validate, and support the theories that she discusses.

            ·Questions at the end of chapters to stimulate further discussion and thought.

            ·Suggestions for further readings in each chapter.

            ·A methodology glossary.

A high degree of research and extensive detailed work went into Health Psychology: a textbook; it is quite far-reaching, in-depth, and well planned. Most likely, this book is designed specifically for teachers and educators.  From the standpoint of breadth and proficiency it is finely crafted; hence, the reason it is used in some large American and European psychology programs such as the Rutgers University psychology programs, and programs at London Metropolitan University.

From this book, I have gained a few tidbits of knowledge about specific areas of health psychology that are holistically oriented, which I feel are useful to deepen my understanding in that domain.  For example, regarding a more integrated model of health Ogden states, “Health psychology again challenges the mind-body split by suggesting a role for the mind in both the cause and treatment of illness…”[1] And, in chapter twelve, concerning the inter-relationship between beliefs, behavior, and health Ogden says, “For centuries, individuals (including doctors and psychologists) from many different cultural backgrounds have used (and still use) apparently inert treatments for various different conditions…The tradition of faith healers has persisted… [although, she adds, our understanding of the process involved is poor]”[2] Yet despite a few interesting specific references such as these, Ogden makes few definitive “big picture” claims or statements about integrated health psychology in this book.

Although I do find Ogden’s work in Health Psychology: a textbook quite clear, concise,  factual, and somewhat informative, as well as thoroughly and

extensively researched; nevertheless, I also find problems with Ogden’s voice, style, and overall mode.  This means that in Health Psychology: a textbook,

Ogden does little to show how her theory and research are connected to real life applications; and I relate these problems, quite likely, to a similar problem

in the pedagogy in health psychology in general. Ogden says “the book will focus on psychological theory supported by research.  In addition, how these theories

can be turned into practice will also be described.”[3]  Unfortunately I did not see many instances of this in the book. I have briefly reviewed a number of

comparable graduate and advanced undergraduate texts in health psychology such as Douglas Carroll’s Health Psychology: stress, behavior, and disease

and Felicity Allen’s, Health Psychology: Theory and practice, as well numerous related articles and texts, which help me frame the ideas for this review. I also

draw from empirical experiences clinically – not as a researcher or clinician, but as an actual patient – to form my views. 

In content, Ogden’s work seems standard fare among related works of its class.  Topics generally studied in health psychology, discussed in comparable books

and in this one are topics such as illness cognitions, illness and health behaviors, psychoneuroimmunology, stress, obesity, and eating behaviors, smoking, diabetes,

pain, placebos and health beliefs, and an overview of field research.  Key theorists and their theories studied are Selye and his general adaptation syndrome

(G.A.S), Prochaska and the stages of change model, Leventhal’s self-regulatory model of illness behavior, Lazarus and Kobasa and self-efficacy and

hardiness research, Lazarus’s role of appraisal, as well as others like Engel, and Seligman - all are quite important contributions to health psychology and

psychology in general.

As follows, I emphasize what I feel are two important points regarding Ogden’s work:

1.)First, Ogden’s work Health Psychology: a textbook, in the realm of health psychology is important because health psychology is an advancing field of research and practice. Also much of the learning in this field is relatively new, at least in terms of modern psychological and health research.  Therefore, I would assume that new, quality contributions to the field are needed. Ogden expresses this as she states, “Health psychology is probably the most recent development in this process of including psychology into an understanding of health.”[4]  This type of text even with the problems I have mentioned seems nevertheless important to further work in the field of health psychology, and nevertheless is commendable for its attempts and successes in doing so.

2.) Health psychology because it is a sub-concentration of psychology, as with all psychology has a subjective element. Because of this, I believe, as a growing number of other people in psychology do, that health psychology research (or psychology research in general) needs to move toward greater holism; it should integrate both qualitative and quantitative aspects in research and practice.  To be more specific, because clinical work and research are at least in part subjective there is no room for a “one size fits all” approach i.e., even if a study or group of studies (a cluster), show conclusive evidence there is always a possibility that one test subject or one clinical patient, in fact, will not fit those same research patterns.  Noted humanistic psychology professor Constance T. Fisher, of Duquesne University says, “Qualitative research is growing apace in education, nursing, cultural studies, feminist studies, and of course in anthropology and sociology. Psychology's traditional notions of science, however, have allowed psychology pretty much to ignore these developments.”[5]

Even apart from this point, much of the quantitative research Ogden puts forth in the book is in fact inconclusive.  In effect, Ogden in her writing and research often plays one side against the other; she typically cites research from one side of an argument and then antagonistically in support of the opposite. I wonder what are her reasons for doing this? Ogden does this repeatedly throughout the book.  For example, on page 143 regarding body dissatisfaction and ethnic influences in women she says, “Although body dissatisfaction has predominantly been seen as a problem for white women, the literature examining the relationship of body dissatisfaction and ethnic group is contradictory.” Then, on page 144 regarding the influence of family on body dissatisfaction she likewise states, “However research examining concordance between mothers and daughters has not always produced consistent results.” And on page 244 concerning stress and illness, “The relationship between stress and illness is not straight forward.”  These are not isolated instances, but rather occur repeatedly throughout the book. If drawing clear conclusions using quantitative analysis is this fickle, wouldn’t we be better off (at least in more instances), to work more within a qualitative framework and not struggle to display conclusions that aren’t actually available?

I feel this book is adequate and quite useful as a compilation of research, or as a clearinghouse of comparative studies as the research presented is factual and important; but as a practical book for use in education with students or clinical work with patients, not so good.  As a primary tool for students who are pursuing careers in the field of health psychology, the book won’t serve much purpose in helping to cultivate well-rounded, holistic, person-centered practice.  I don’t think this book is tremendously useful toward a goal of integrated health education and care - its core content is not humanistic enough, not person-centered enough.  Within the field, findings show increasingly that health psychology is a systems-based, human-centered discipline and Ogden does not incorporate aspects of this much, if at all, into her work. Even though Ogden writes a few statements about integrated views and a biopsychosocial model, this book is more of the same, “body as machine” paradigm that has evolved from an imbalanced quantitative Cartesian view of science and biomedicine.