Normal isn't normal: On the medicalization of health.

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the proportion of the U.S. population classified as healthy based on 10 common indicators, examined in two ways: (1) above or below (in the healthy direction) the sample median (termed "normal"), and (2) below diagnostic cut-off points for clinical caseness or high risk (termed "ideal").

METHODS

Data are from the 2017-March 2020 round of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Sample sizes ranged from 3,956 to 8,961 for respective health indicators, with a total of 3,102 respondents for two weighted multi-item measures described below. Measures included the Alameda 5 health behaviors (smoking, drinking exercising, sleeping, and body mass index) and five standard biomarkers (systolic and diastolic blood pressure, resting heart rate, fasting glucose, and total cholesterol). Besides point prevalences for the normal and ideal categories for each indicator, we also calculated the proportion healthy for all 10 indicators, again calculated both ways, termed "meta-normal" and "meta-ideal."

RESULTS

The prevalence of meta-normality was 1.05%, suggesting that hardly any adult Americans are completely healthy according to population norms. Findings for meta-ideality showed that while most Americans are not clinical cases for any respective indicator, only 5.55% met the official criteria for being healthy according to all 10 indicators.

CONCLUSION

Most Americans appear healthy according to nearly all key health indicators and biomarkers, according to "normal" or "ideal" criteria. However, the proportion healthy according to all measures is extremely small. Relatively few U.S. adults are completely healthy according to clinical criteria (meta-ideal), and even fewer are completely healthy according to population norms (meta-normal). Results are interpreted through sociological writing on medicalization.