Feeling less alone online: patients' ambivalent engagements with digital media

"Can Anyone Tell Me…". Online Health Communities in Diabetes Self-Management in Poland and Italy

This paper contributes to the debate about the role of Online Health Communities (OHCs) in the healthcare system by concentrating on the kind of information sought and shared by their members. The paper focuses on OHCs for diabetes and discusses the main findings of a qualitative study conducted in Italy and Poland. The Uses and Gratifications approach informed the study, while content analysis was used to perform the analysis. The findings show that OHCs' role goes beyond information and emotional support, which relies on expertise by experience. Indeed, the lack of basic knowledge constituting the essential diabetes literacy for self-management was partially compensated by peer exchange in the OHCs. This raises at least two problems: quality and reliability of the information shared online, and consequences in terms of the equity that a healthcare system provides.

Postdigital health practices: new directions in medical humanities

Digitalisation has changed the way we understand and practice health. The recent pandemic has accelerated some of the developments in digital health and brought about modifications in public access to information. Taking this into consideration, this programmatic paper sets the stage for and conceptualises postdigital health practices as a possible field of inquiry within medical humanities. While delineating some central aspects of said practices, I draw attention to their significance in contemporary strategies of knowledge production. Spotlighting online environments as the point of ingress for the analysis of these practices, I propose three possible foci of critical and methodological engagement. By spotlighting the serialisation, multimodality, and transmediality of such environments, I argue, we have a chance to both augment and go beyond the field's long-standing preoccupation with narrative, attend to various strategies of communicating illness experience, and re-frame them within larger questions of systemic inequalities. On this basis, and taking as examples COVID-19 and Long COVID, I sketch some of the directions that future strands of medical humanities may take and some of the questions we still have to ask for the field to overcome its own biases and blind spots.

Contesting misrecognition online: Experiences of epistemic in/justice by vloggers with contested illnesses

Contested illnesses, such as fibromyalgia, myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), and chronic Lyme disease (CLD), are surrounded by polemic debates regarding their etiology, symptomology, treatment, and even their existence. People who suffer from these contested illnesses arguably also suffer from "epistemic injustice." This concept, coined by the philosopher Miranda Fricker, captures how people's knowledge may be discredited because of identity prejudices. In our paper, this concept is used to understand how seven Dutch women with contested illnesses experience the emancipatory potential of their vlogging practices. Our findings show how these women understood their vlogging as a means to break with epistemic smothering, understood as the propensity to cater ones testimony to one's audience (Dotson, 2011), and as a means to attain and enhance epistemic justice. However, our findings also show how vlogging about contested illnesses did not seem to allow these women to fully break with their epistemic smothering practices, and that the ableist design and gendered norms of YouTube were experienced as obstacles to attaining epistemic justice. We conclude that, even though social media do seem to hold emancipatory potential for these women, the experiences of individual users are diverse and ambiguous.

Long covid and medical gaslighting: Dismissal, delayed diagnosis, and deferred treatment

While we know a lot more about Long Covid today, patients who were infected with Covid-19 early on in the pandemic and developed Long Covid had to contend with medical professionals who lacked awareness of the potential for extended complications from Covid-19. Long Covid patients have responded by labeling their contentious interactions with medical professionals, organizations, and the broader medical system as "gaslighting." We argue that the charge of medical gaslighting can be understood as a form of ontological politics. Not only do patients demand that their version of reality be recognized, but they also blame the experts who hold gatekeeping power over their medical care for producing a distorted version of said reality. By analyzing results from an online survey of Long Covid patients active on social media in the United States (n ​= ​334), we find that experiences of contention and their reframing as "gaslighting" were common amongst our respondents. In short answer responses about their experience obtaining medical care for Long Covid, our respondents described encountering medical professionals who dismissed their experience, leading to lengthy diagnostic odysseys and lack of treatment options for Long Covid. Even though we are limited by characteristics of our sample, there is good reason to believe that these experiences and their contentious reframing as medical gaslighting are exacerbated by gender, class, and racial inequalities.

Austerity and identity formation: How welfare cutbacks condition narratives of sickness

In recent years, Swedish sick insurance has become more restrictive. In this article, we analyse how people not being granted payments, despite being seriously ill, are affected. Scholarship on identity formation and sickness stress the importance of constructing narratives in order to come to terms with one's situation. Our analysis of 30 qualitative interviews with people diagnosed with ME/CFS shows that workfare politics conditions such identity formation and often prevents it from taking place. Interviewees describe extreme stress as a result of their contacts with the Social Insurance Agency (SIA), which results in a perpetual crisis that is renewed with each new denied application. In particular, the sense of not having a future means that it is hard to construct narratives to make sense of one's situation. To escape the perpetual crisis, some people have politicised their situation, constructing a narrative about themselves as suffering from oppressive politics. Others have escaped by not applying for sick insurance or other social insurances. But generally speaking, the most common effect of being denied sick insurance is an ongoing crisis that leads to deteriorating health.

'A platform for goodness, not for badness': The heuristics of hope in patients' evaluations of online health information

Patient advocates and activists are increasingly relying on online health information that can assist them to manage their health condition. Yet once online, they will confront diverse information whose veracity and utility are difficult to determine. This article offers a sociological analysis of the practical methods, or heuristics, that patient advocates and activists use when making judgements about the credibility and utility of online information. Drawing on the findings from interviews with fifty Australian patient advocates and activists, it is argued that these individuals' use of these heuristics reflects their hopes that information can help them manage their condition which may, in some cases, override fears and uncertainties that arise during searches. The article identifies the common 'rules-of-thumb'-or what we call the 'heuristics of hope'-that patient advocates/activists may use to make judgements and highlights the dangers of over-reliance on them, especially regarding clinically unproven, potentially unsafe treatments. Analyses of the heuristics of hope, we conclude, can assist in understanding the dynamics of decision-making and the role that affect plays in online patient communities which is crucial in an age characterised by the rapid circulation of emotionally charged messages, often based on hope.

Negotiating mental illness across the lay-professional divide: Role play in peer work consultations

Patient involvement is a prominent policy aim in modern health care. Today, mental health services employ peer workers (PWs) who have personal experiences with mental illness. Based on 22 interviews with PWs and 26 audio recordings of real-life consultations, we show how PWs talk about their personal experiences as professional qualifications. Furthermore, we demonstrate how in real-life encounters, PWs and patients convert personal experiences into a professional approach through an interactionist role play that balance PWs role as former patients and current professionals. Our analysis shows that PWs combine the personal pronoun 'I' (stressing that it is personal) with the indefinite pronoun 'one' (referring to generalised patient experiences) when they recount illness experiences. This convey that PWs engage with mental illness as both a personal and professional topic. In addition, the analysis shows that PWs (and patients) use professional clues to manifest PWs' positions as professionals. Overall, the article demonstrates that instead of focussing on authentic patient relationships, as previous research has done, it is beneficial to investigate peer work from a symbolic interactionist approach revealing how PWs and patients skilfully manoeuvre the contradictions embedded in the PWs' dual role as former patients and current professionals.

Whose Advice is Credible? Claiming Lay Expertise in a Covid-19 Online Community

During the initial months of the Covid-19 pandemic, credentialed experts-scientists, doctors, public health experts, and policymakers-as well as members of the public and patients faced radical uncertainty. Knowledge about how Covid-19 was spread, how best to diagnose the disease, and how to treat infected patients was scant and contested. Despite this radical uncertainty, however, certain users of Covid-19 Together, a large online community for those who have contracted Covid-19, were able to dispense advice to one another that was seen as credible and trustworthy. Relying on Goffman's dramaturgical theory of social interaction, we highlight the performative dimension of claims to lay expertise to show how credibility is accrued under conditions of radical uncertainty. Drawing on four months of data from the forum, we show how credible performances of lay expertise necessitated the entangling of expert discourse with illness experience, creating a hybrid interlanguage. A credible performance of lay expertise in this setting was characterized by users' ability to switch freely between personal and scientific registers, finding and creating resonances between the two. To become a credible lay expert on this online community, users had to learn to ask questions and demonstrate a willingness to engage with biomedical knowledge while carefully generalizing their personal experience.