Gould's Pathophysiology for the Health Professions

I've used both Huether/McCance and the past two editions of the Gould text. As a U of Utah school of med alum, have to be nice to the Huether McCance team as it is a reference quality text that remains, well, reference quality, but for the beginning student in pathophys who may be years out of A and P, just too daunting and detailed. For those students Gould is a much better match IME as it provides some of the most coherent reviews of A and P available anywhere, while providing a solid foundation in Patho. For a master's level class, go with H/M; undergrads I believe are better served by the Gould text.
(PS: Been teaching patho to nsg students for five years)

My two biggest complaints about this text is that it glosses over complex topics that are NECESSARY for understanding pathophysiology, and that it takes the same disease process/ topic and describes it *just slightly* in different ways in different parts of the text- enough to make you wonder if you are missing information or do not understand it fully. I found myself using other sources/ textbooks for the course. The book wastes space repeating the same symptoms for diseases (within a group)- when that space would be better utilized with more depth. It would be simple enough to say the following diseases X,Y,Z share this common symptomology/ process/ etiology etc. Some of the depths concerns are, for example: How do you write an entire chapter on electrolyte balance/ homeostasis and not mention the RAAS? There is no mention of transcription factors- but that is the target of some drugs, not to mention cell signaling.

There are also errors peppered throughout- some of which my professor stated that she emailed about last year and the errors have not changed. And the Evolve modules that go with the text are FULL of contradictions. My school won't be using it again so there goes my shot at getting some money back for this text.

This is my textbook for graduate level pathophysiology. It is not a "fun" read but it is such a great collection of information. I have the study guide too. I would suggest this to any student health professional looking to gain a matter of fact vocabulary and concise understanding of human pathophysiology in the health care setting.

It's a pathophysiology textbook among a sea full of pathophysiology textbooks. There's really nothing exceptional about it. It gives some great general information about disorders and diseases, but doesn't go into much detail. It feels like it tries to cram as much information in as little of a page count as possible. It's more of an overview than anything else. It has served its purpose for my pathophysiology class, but beyond that I don't see much use for it in a clinical setting.

There was no access code even though the description stated it would be included. And the seller wouldn’t accept a return. BE AWARE! Not an honest seller.

As cover at front was good when you look inside Book.it is wet and mold on it . Not happy 😤

Not a very detailed book, information very basic.

Great for people trying to revitalize information learned previously, but not for students. It's just jammed with content without going into detail. It really lives up to its title. For Health Professions, but not students hoping to become a healthcare provider. It's webMD in book form. I guess that is the nature of this science? Idk I haven't read other patho books.

-Can be much more concise; I lose focus because it's very wordy.
-There are diagrams, some of them help like when going over ion movements, but others are unneeded.
-Some of the study questions during the reading are more complex than the content. Probably seems this way because important information is clouded by rambling
-A long stringing of facts, no progressive/comprehensive order, hard to get into the flow of reading because its all so disconnected. Lack of transitions between points made.
-Seems like the book was unable to decide what was important and what wasn't so they just put everything they could in. Which is ineffective for me.
-Bad for first time learning about diseases.
-No Fundamental chapter explaining common abnormalities that are often referenced through out.

Pros:
Great for review

filled with contradicting information regarding vaccines and antibiotics.

great read