Property talk:P1995

Documentation

health specialty
main specialty that diagnoses, prevent human illness, injury and other physical and mental impairments

Description

The health specialty that is most concerned with a particular condition

Represents

health specialty (Q44597158)

Data type

Item

Domain

According to this template: Medical conditions

According to statements in the property:
disease (Q12136), medical finding (Q639907), medical procedure type (Q55214844) or fictional medical condition (Q18596079)

When possible, data should only be stored as statements

Allowed values

One or more instance of medical specialty (Q930752) (note: this should be moved to the property statements)

Example

According to this template: pneumonia (Q12192) => infectious diseases (Q16920362), pulmonology (Q203337); cataract (Q127724) => ophthalmology (Q161437);

According to statements in the property:
cataract (Q127724) → ophthalmology (Q161437)
pneumonia (Q12192) → infectious diseases (Q788926)
pulmonology (Q203337)

When possible, data should only be stored as statements

Tracking: usage

Category:Pages using Wikidata property P1995 (Q27478239)

Tracking: local yes, WD no

no label (Q44417018)

Lists

Proposal discussion

Current uses

Total	11,341
Main statement	10,502	92.6% of uses
Qualifier	829	7.3% of uses
Reference	10	<0.1% of uses

Search for values

[create Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here]

Item “medical examination (P923)”: Items with this property should also have “medical examination (P923)”. (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1995#Item P923, search, SPARQL

Item “possible treatment (P924)”: Items with this property should also have “possible treatment (P924)”. (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1995#Item P924, search, SPARQL

Item “symptoms and signs (P780)”: Items with this property should also have “symptoms and signs (P780)”. (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1995#Item P780, search, SPARQL

Item “has cause (P828)”: Items with this property should also have “has cause (P828)”. (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1995#Item P828, search, SPARQL

Type “disease (Q12136), medical finding (Q639907), medical procedure type (Q55214844), fictional medical condition (Q18596079)”: item must contain property “instance of (P31), subclass of (P279)” with classes “disease (Q12136), medical finding (Q639907), medical procedure type (Q55214844), fictional medical condition (Q18596079)” or their subclasses (defined using subclass of (P279)). (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1995#Type Q12136, Q639907, Q55214844, Q18596079, SPARQL

Conflicts with “instance of (P31): human (Q5)”: this property must not be used with the listed properties and values. (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1995#Conflicts with P31, search, SPARQL

Allowed entity types are Wikibase MediaInfo (Q59712033), Wikibase item (Q29934200): the property may only be used on a certain entity type (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1995#Entity types

Scope is as main value (Q54828448), as qualifier (Q54828449): the property must be used by specified way only (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1995#Scope, SPARQL

This property is being used by:

Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.)

Medical specialty[edit]

Hi, guys. There is a problem with this parameter with the psychological disorders. In this way, the scheme seems to indicate that the disorder is only of a medical nature, when in reality its approach is mainly psychological. How to fix this problem? --Dapifer (talk) 10:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notified participants of WikiProject Medicine

@Dapifer, Tobias1984, Doc James, Kaligula, MarrickLip, Izno: @Bluerasberry, Wouterstomp, WhatamIdoing, Micru, TomT0m: Apparently the confinement of this property to "medical" specialties is causing problems for mental health disorders - see this new property proposal: Wikidata:Property proposal/other specialty. I suggest the (English) property label be changed to "health specialty" to allow non-medical or not-necessarily-medical health professions as in the examples presented there to be included. Any objections to that change? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support @ArthurPSmith: Thank you for your patience. I think it is the best solution to avoid any kind of ambiguity and controversy.--Dapifer (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Renaming to "health specialty". ChristianKl (✉) 18:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a good idea. However, assuming an item will need to be created, how would this "health specialty" be defined? Has anybody found this term used in any database? Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 03:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the discussion in the new proposal, it seems somewhat unclear how this is meant to be sourced. Thus

Oppose.
--- Jura 08:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that discussion we talk about "other specialty" and not "health specialty" as it was later decided. There is no source and there is no definition for the term "other specialty" --Dapifer (talk) 11:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Referring to this category of professionals (health profession (Q15220429)) and so that the field of action is not restricted only to medical specialty (especially for the treatment of mental disorders). An acceptable and linear definition of health specialty is that offered by the WHO:

World Health Organization: Services that promote health, prevent diseases and deliver health care services to individuals, families and communities based on the primary health care approach.

Otherwise:

Transformative Education for Health Professionals, in particular: Diagnose, treat and prevent human illness, injury and other physical and mental impairments [...].

Which in Italy is so defined:

Italian Ministry of Health: Professionisti [...] che, in forza di un titolo abilitante, svolgono attività di prevenzione, diagnosi, cura e riabilitazione (Professionals who, by virtue of an enabling title, carry out prevention, diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation).

--Dapifer (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we have the clear WHO definition for health specialty (Q44597158) and the majority was supporting I think we can rename the property. At the same time I think it's worth to wait a few days for possible objections.

Notified participants of WikiProject Medicine ChristianKl (✉) 13:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- The problem is not the definition of the values, but the link between the concept and the value.
  --- Jura 16:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a well developed standard to reference: The UN's w:International Labour Organization publishes the International Standard Classification of Occupations. Unfortunately, as with many UN branches, the permissions page suggests that substantial usage must either be Non-Commercial or requires explicit permission. @Doc James:, I believe you have had some similar discussions with the WHO. Any comment? LeadSongDog (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First off it is strange that User:LeadSongDog's ping worked but the one above did not.

With respect to WHO, they say they are happy for us to use their material. They claim it is under an open license from time to time.

But beyond that they are evasive and it is difficult to nail them down on what they mean (with a few exceptions such as the Bulletin of the WHO being under a CC BY SA license)

So to summarize, it is unclear.

With respect to broadening the category, I want to keep the number of items smaller in number. If broadened we might end up with ever condition having a dozen. Someone will add "family physician" to all of them. Someone else will add "nurse practitioner" to all of them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, of course, we already have Q1233766 (International Standard Classification of Occupations) and ISCO-88 occupation class (P952) (ISCO occupation code). Perhaps the folks at

Notified participants of WikiProject Occupations and professions could chime in? LeadSongDog (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Renaming to "health specialty", however, I understand the problem highlighted by Doc James. Thanks.--Geoide (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clinical psychology as an example of the challenges[edit]

Thank you Dapifer for initiating this discussion. It looks like some progress has been made as a result, which is an accomplishment given the complexities involved!

I added "Clinical psychology" to "Speciality" in the Medical Infobox for "suicidal ideation" on Wikipedia, where Psychiatry already existed. I tried to add/edit corresponding Wikidata but it's a challenge to be sure.

I added the Statement "health specialty" --> "clinical psychology", although this produced a "Potential Issues" notice, indicating:

item requires statement constraint: An entity with health specialty should also have a statement symptoms.
item requires statement constraint: An entity with health specialty should also have a statement medical examinations.
item requires statement constraint: An entity with health specialty should also have a statement medical treatment.
type constraint: Entities using the health specialty property should be subclasses of disease (or of a subclass of it), but suicidal ideation currently isn't.

I added the Statement "medical treatment" --> "psychotherapy". The other three do not seem to work, e.g., "suicidal ideation" is a symptom, so adding a symptoms statement didn't make sense. Adding "medical examinations" doesn't seem work because clinical psychologists do not conduct "medical examinations". And I had no idea how to deal with the fact that "suicidal ideation" is not a disease.

I am hoping that since these are potential issues, we deal with the issues that yield a clear solution and then move on.

If I got any of this wrong (wouldn't surprise me!) please let me know. Markworthen (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Markworthen, yes, in reality this would create confusion between the medical and the psychological profession. The solutions could be:

1) remove the obligations to insert some assertions.

2) replace the word "medical" with "sanitary/health", so it would be for example "health treatments". Making it possible to add, for example, "psychological therapy" or "psychological rehabilitation".

However, I think it is appropriate to talk with an administrator, explaining in detail the problems encountered. --Dapifer (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tautologies in the Documentation?[edit]

I'm probably missing something basic, but lines such as

Item “medical examinations (P923)”: Items with this property should also have “medical examinations (P923)”.

seem pointless. How does this aid anything?LeadSongDog (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The constraint means that items with health specialty (P1995) should have medical examination (P923) as well. The text is automatically generated based on the constraint statements on the property. ChristianKl (✉) 01:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then why doesn't the doc say

Item “health specialty (P1995)”: Items with this property should also have “medical examinations (P923)”.

(or vice versa) instead? Is the automatic generation somehow broken leading to the tautology? LeadSongDog (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"this property" refers to the subject property, i.e. health specialty (P1995). However, the text before colon is a summary of item-requires-statement constraint (Q21503247), so I think it would be better to replace "Item" with "Sentence" or something. --Okkn (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

value type constraint[edit]

Notified participants of WikiProject Medicine

I will add a value type constraint to this property. I think the values of this property should be instances of health specialty (Q44597158). Any thoughts? --Okkn (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Okkn: Support This seems obvious and correct. If we say that a topic has the property "health specialty = X", then X should be an instance of a health specialty. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]