Among the instruments offered to citizens via digital media are risk calculators, aiming at identifying individuals at high risk of various diseases. These calculators present us with both epistemological and socioethical challenges. Tracking the history of individual risk models, this article provides an analysis looking into their content, construction, use and functions. Epistemologically, the notion of risk factor epidemiology frames an approach to public health that goes through the identification of high-risk individuals, providing a way of making public health doable without involving social, cultural and economical factors in the risk assessments. Instead, ethnicity is included in many calculators, serving as boundary objects that enable epidemiologists to avoid addressing its inherent epistemological challenges. Through this notion of individual risk, a discourse is created that provides us with the narrative of the empowered vulnerable global citizen, which is given room to look after her or his risky self, while ignoring the structural and political factors influencing it. In doing so, flawed calculator construction provides ample risk of getting the wrong number.
BennetLGroopLLindbladUet al. (2014) Ethnicity is an independent risk indicator when estimating diabetes risk with FINDRISC scores: A cross sectional study comparing immigrants from the Middle East and native Swedes. Primary Care Diabetes8: 231–238.
6.
BoukD (2015) How Our Days Became Numbered: Risk and the Rise of the Statistical Individual. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
7.
BurrV (2015) Social Constructionism. 3rd ed.London: Routledge.
8.
ChenLMaglianoDJBalkauBet al. (2010) AUSDRISK: An Australian type 2 diabetes risk assessment tool based on demographic, lifestyle and simple anthropometric measures. Medical Journal of Australia192(4): 197–202.
9.
ClarkeAEMamoLFosketJRet al. (2010) Biomedicalization: Technoscience, Health and Illness in the US. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
10.
DammanOCBogaertsNMMVan den HaakMJet al. (2017) How lay people understand and make sense of personalised disease risk information. Health Expectations20: 973–983.
11.
DhippayomTChaiyakunaprukNKrassI (2014) How diabetes risk assessment tools are implemented in practice: A systematic review. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice104: 329–342.
12.
DhippayomTFuangchanATunpichartSet al. (2012) Opportunistic screening and health promotion for type 2 diabetes: An expanding public health role for the community pharmacist. Journal of Public Health33(2): 262–269.
13.
DubriwnyTN (2013) The Vulnerable Empowered Woman: Feminism, Postfeminism and Women’s Health. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
14.
DumitJ (2012) Drugs for life: How Pharmaceutical Companies Define Our Health. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
15.
EbelingM (2011) ‘Get with the program!’: Pharmaceutical marketing, symptom checklists and self-diagnosis. Social Science & Medicine73: 825–832.
16.
EpsteinS (2007) Inclusion: The Politics of Difference in Medical Research. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
17.
EttingerBBlackDMDawson-HughesBet al. (2010) Updated fracture incidence rates for the US version of FRAX. Osteoporosis International21: 25–33.
18.
FijackoNBrzanPPStiglicG (2015) Mobile applications for type 2 diabetes risk estimation: A systematic review. Journal of Medical System39: 124.
19.
FosketJ (2004) Constructing ‘High-risk women’: The development and standardization of a breast cancer risk assessment tool. Science Technology and Human Values29(3): 291–313.
20.
GlümerCCarstensenBSandbækAet al. (2004) A Danish diabetes risk score for targeted screening. Diabetes Care27(3): 727–733.
21.
GreeneJA (2007) Prescribing by Numbers: Drugs and the Definition of Disease. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
22.
HolmbergCParascandolaM (2010) Individualised risk estimation and the nature of prevention. Health Risk & Society12(5): 441–452.
23.
HolmbergCHarttigUSchulzeSet al. (2011) The potential of the internet for health communication: The use of an interactive on-line tool for diabetes risk prediction. Patient Education and Counseling83: 106–112.
24.
JanghorbaniMAdinehHAminiM (2013) Finnish diabetes risk score to predict type 2 diabetes in the Isfahan diabetes prevention study. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice102: 202–209.
25.
JutelAG (2011) Putting a Name to It: Diagnosis in Contemporary Society. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
26.
KanisJAHansDCooperCet al. (2011) Interpretation and use of FRAX in clinical practice. Osteoporosis International22: 2395–2411.
27.
KanisJAHarveyNCCooperCet al. (2016) A systematic review of intervention thresholds based on FRAX. Archives of Osteoporosis11: 25.
28.
KanisJAHarveyNCJohanssonHet al. (2015) FRAX and fracture prediction without bone mineral density. Climacteric18(Suppl. 2): 2–9.
29.
KanisJAJohanssonHOdenAet al. (2014) Worldwide uptake of FRAX. Archives of Osteoporosis9: 166.
30.
KanisJAMcCloskeyEJohanssonHet al. (2012) FRAX® with and without bone mineral density. Calcified Tissue International90: 1–13.
31.
KinchSHDoyleJTHilleboeHE (1963) Risk factors in ischemic heart disease. American Journal of Public Health53(3): 438–442.
32.
KriegerN (2011) Epidemiology and the People’s Health. Theory and Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
33.
KuGMVKegelsG (2013) The performance of the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score and a simplified Finnish Diabetes Score in a community-based cross-sectional screening of undiagnosed type 2 diabetes in the Philippines. Primary Care Diabetes7: 249–259.
34.
KulloITrejo-GutierrezFLopez-JiminezFet al. (2014) A perspective on the new American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for cardiovascular risk assessment. Mayo Clinic Proceedings89(9): 1244–1256.
35.
LatourB (1999) Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36.
LindströmJTuomilehtoJ (2003) The diabetes risk score: A practical tool to predict Type 2 diabetes risk. Diabetes Care26(3): 725–731.
37.
LiuJHongYD’AgostinoRBet al. (2004) Predictive value for the Chinese population of the Framingham CHD risk assessment tool compared with the Chinese Multi-provincial Cohort study. Journal of the American Medical Association291(21): 2591–2599.
38.
McKinleyJMarceauL (2008) When there is no doctor: Reasons for the disappearance of primary care physicians in the US during the early 21st century. Social Science & Medicine67: 1481–1491.
39.
Marques-VidalPRodondiNBochudMet al. (2009) Predictive accuracy of original and recalibrated Framingham risk score in the Swiss population. International Journal of Cardiology133: 346–353.
40.
MarteauT (2018) Changing minds about changing behaviour. The Lancet391: 116–117.
41.
MatsunoRKCostantinoJPZieglerRGet al. (2011) Projecting individualized absolute invasive breast cancer risk in Asian and Pacific Islander American women. Journal of the National Cancer Institute103: 951–961.
42.
MegyesiMSHuntLMBrodyH (2011) A critical review of racial/ethnic variables in osteoporosis and bone density research. Osteoporosis International22: 1669–1679.
43.
MühlenbruchKJoostH-GBoeingHet al. (2014) Risk prediction for type 2 diabetes in the German population with the updated German Diabetes Risk Score (GDRS). Ernahrungs Umschau61(6): 90–93.
44.
NobleDMathurRDentTet al. (2011) Risk models and scores for type 2 diabetes: Systematic review. British Medical Journal343: d7163.
45.
OmechBMwitaJCTshikukaJGet al. (2016) Validity of the Finnish Diabetes Score for detecting undiagnosed Type 2 diabetes among general medical outpatients in Botswana. Journal of Diabetes Research2016: 4968350.
46.
PayerL (1992) Disease Mongers. How Doctors, Drug Companies Are Making You Feel Sick. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
47.
PetersenALuptonD (1996) The New Public Health: Health and Self in the Age of Risk. London: SAGE.
48.
PollockA (2012) Medicating Race. Heart Disease and Durable Preoccupations with Difference. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
49.
PriorL (2003) Using Documents in Social Research. London: SAGE.
50.
RanaJSTabadaGHSolomonMDet al. (2016) Accuracy of the atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk equation in a large contemporary, multiethnic population. Journal of the American College of Cardiology67(18): 2118–2130.
51.
RoseG (1985) Sick individuals and sick populations. International Journal of Epidemiology14: 32–38.
52.
RothsteinWG (2003) Public Health and the Risk Factor: A History of an Uneven Medical Revolution. Rochester, NY: Rochester University Press.
53.
ShimJK (2014) Heart-Sick: The Politics of Risk, Inequality, and Heart Disease. New York: New York University Press.
54.
SilvestreMPJiangYVolkovaKet al. (2017) Evaluating FINDRISC as a screening tool for type 2 diabetes among overweights in the PREVIEW: NZ cohort. Primary Care Diabetes11: 561–569.
55.
SkolbekkenJ-A (2008) Unlimited medicalization? Risk and the pathologization of normality. In: PetersenAWilkinsonI (eds) Health, Risk and Vulnerability. London: Routledge, pp. 16–29.
56.
StarSLGriesemerJR (1989) Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–1939. Social Studies of Science19: 387–420.
57.
SusserM (1998) Does risk factor epidemiology put epidemiology at risk? Peering into the future. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health52: 608–611.
58.
VergnaudACBertraisSGalanPet al. (2008) Ten-year risk prediction in French men using the Framingham coronary score: Results from the national SU.VI.MAX cohort. Preventive Medicine47: 61–65.
59.
WalkerMJRogersWA (2017) Diagnosis, narrative identity, and asymptomatic disease. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics38: 307–321.
60.
WattsNBEttingerBLeBoffMS (2009) FRAX facts. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research24(6): 975–979.
61.
WillCMWeinerK (2015) The drugs don’t sell: DIY heart health and over the counter statin experience. Social Science & Medicine131: 280–288.
