Epistemic injustice in healthcare encounters: evidence from chronic fatigue syndrome

Healthcare system barriers impacting the care of Canadians with myalgic encephalomyelitis: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME, also known as chronic fatigue syndrome or ME/CFS) is a debilitating, complex, multisystem illness. Developing a comprehensive understanding of the multiple and interconnected barriers to optimal care will help advance strategies and care models to improve quality of life for people living with ME in Canada.

OBJECTIVES

To: (1) identify and systematically map the available evidence; (2) investigate the design and conduct of research; (3) identify and categorize key characteristics; and (4) identify and analyse knowledge gaps related to healthcare system barriers for people living with ME in Canada.

METHODS

The protocol was preregistered in July 2022. Peer-reviewed and grey literature was searched, and patient partners retrieved additional records. Eligible records were Canadian, included people with ME/CFS and included data or synthesis relevant to healthcare system barriers.

RESULTS

In total, 1821 records were identified, 406 were reviewed in full, and 21 were included. Healthcare system barriers arose from an underlying lack of consensus and research on ME and ME care; the impact of long-standing stigma, disbelief, and sexism; inadequate or inconsistent healthcare provider education and training on ME; and the heterogeneity of care coordinated by family physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

People living with ME in Canada face significant barriers to care, though this has received relatively limited attention. This synthesis, which points to several areas for future research, can be used as a starting point for researchers, healthcare providers and decision-makers who are new to the area or encountering ME more frequently due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Virtual reality education on myalgic encephalomyelitis for medical students and healthcare professionals: a pilot study

INTRODUCTION

Myalgic encephalomyelitis/ chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is a chronic condition which may be characterised by debilitating fatigue, post-exertional malaise, unrefreshing sleep, and cognitive difficulties. ME/CFS has significant negative impact on quality of life for those living with the condition. This may be exacerbated by a lack of knowledge within healthcare regarding the condition. Previous research has found that immersive virtual reality (VR) educational experiences within healthcare education can increase knowledge and empathy.

METHODS

The present study employed a quasi-experimental pre-test-post-test design to investigate the impact of a short immersive VR educational experience on knowledge of ME/CFS and empathy for those living with the condition. The VR experience placed participants into a virtual scene which told real life stories of the experience of people living with ME/CFS and their families. 43 participants completed in this pilot study: 28 medical students and 15 primary care health professionals. Participants completed measures of knowledge of ME/CFS and empathy before and after engagement with the experience.

RESULTS

A statistically significant increase was found for levels of knowledge (p < .001, d = 0.74) and empathy (p < .001, d = 1.56) from pre-VR experience levels to post-VR experience levels with a medium and large effect size, respectively. Further analysis revealed no statistically significant difference between baseline levels of knowledge of ME/CFS between healthcare professionals and medical students.

DISCUSSION

The present study is the first to explore the use of this short immersive VR experience as an education tool within healthcare to increase knowledge of ME/CFS, and empathy for those living with the condition. Findings allude to the previously established lack of knowledge of ME/CFS within healthcare although promisingly the increases in knowledge and empathy found suggest that this immersive VR experience has potential to address this. Such changes found in this small-scale pilot study suggest that future research into the use of VR as an educational tool within this setting may be beneficial. Use of a control group, and larger sample size as well as investigation of retention of these changes may also enhance future research.

A critical and systematic literature review of epistemic justice applied to healthcare: recommendations for a patient partnership approach

Invalidation from healthcare practitioners is an experience shared by many patients, especially those marginalized or living with contested conditions (e.g., chronic pain, fibromyalgia, etc.). Invalidation can include not taking someone's testimony seriously, imposing one's thoughts, discrediting someone's emotions, or not perceiving someone's testimony as equal and competent. Epistemic injustices, that is, the disqualification of a person as a knower, are a form of invalidation. Epistemic injustices have been used as a theoretical framework to understand invalidation that occurs in the patient-healthcare provider relationship. However, to date, the different recommendations to achieve epistemic justice have not been listed, analyzed, nor compared yet. This paper aims at better understanding the state of the literature and to critically review possible avenues to achieve epistemic justice in healthcare. A systematic and critical review of the existing literature on epistemic justice was conducted. The search in four databases identified 629 articles, from which 35 were included in the review. Strategies to promote epistemic justice that can be applied to healthcare are mapped in the literature and sorted in six different approaches to epistemic justice, including virtuous, structural, narrative, cognitive, and partnership approaches, as well as resistance strategies. These strategies are critically appraised. A patient partnership approach based on the Montreal Model, implemented at all levels of healthcare systems, seems promising to promote epistemic justice in healthcare.

Understanding Rare Disease Experiences Through the Concept of Morally Problematic Situations

Rare diseases, defined as having a prevalence inferior to 1/2000, are poorly understood scientifically and medically. Appropriate diagnoses and treatments are scarce, adding to the burden of living with chronic medical conditions. The moral significance of rare disease experiences is often overlooked in qualitative studies conducted with adults living with rare diseases. The concept of morally problematic situations arising from pragmatist ethics shows promise in understanding these experiences. The objectives of this study were to (1) acquire an in-depth understanding of morally problematic situations experienced by adults living with rare diseases in the province of Québec and (2) to develop an integrative model of the concept of morally problematic situations. To this end, an online survey targeting this population was developed through a participatory action research project. Respondents provided 90 long testimonies on the most important morally problematic situations they faced, often in healthcare settings. An integrative model was developed based on various qualitative analyses of these testimonies and relevant literature. The integrative model showcases that morally problematic situations have causes (i.e., contextual and relational factors, personal factors, jeopardized valuations), have affective repercussions (i.e., emotions and feelings, internal tensions), prompt action (i.e., through empowerment strategies leading to the evolution of situations), and elicit outcomes (i.e., factual consequences, residual emotions and feelings, positive or negative resolutions). In sum, this study advances understanding of the moral experiences of adults living with rare diseases while proposing a comprehensive conceptual tool to guide future empirical bioethics research on moral experiences.

Invalidation by medical professionals in post-treatment Lyme disease

Patients with post-treatment Lyme disease (PTLD) report negative perceptions of care and significant invalidation from medical professionals. However, the relationship of invalidation to illness severity has not been examined, nor have risk factors for invalidation been identified. This cross-sectional study enrolled 80 patients who met stringent criteria for PTLD. We examined correlations between the Illness Invalidation Inventory and measures of symptom severity, quality of life, and trust in physicians. To study the relationship between invalidation and potential demographic and clinical factors, we generated simple unadjusted and multivariate adjusted linear regression models. We found that higher 'lack of understanding' and 'discounting' subscale scores of the Illness Invalidation Inventory were significantly positively correlated with higher symptom severity, lower quality of life, and lower trust in physicians. In adjusted linear regression models, older age (lack of understanding: β = - 0.17, p = 0.008, discounting: β = - 0.19, p = 0.001, every 10 years) and male gender (lack of understanding: β = - 0.49, p = 0.016, discounting: β = - 0.51, p = 0.006) were associated with less invalidation. We also identified receiving an alternative diagnosis for PTLD as a mediator in the relationship between gender and invalidation. Based on our findings, we hypothesize that reducing invalidation within the clinical encounter could positively affect illness burden and quality of life for patients with PTLD.

Will psychology ever 'join hands' with disability studies? Opportunities and challenges in working towards structurally competent and disability-affirmative psychotherapy for energy limiting conditions

Despite sustained efforts among critically informed scholars to integrate thinking from disability studies into psychology, the psy disciplines continue to largely neglect the lived experience of disabled people and overlook disability as a form of social inequity and valued culture. In this article, I make a renewed case for integrating thinking from disability studies into psy, in particular within the psychotherapy professions and in the case of 'energy limiting conditions', a grass-roots concept that includes clinically and socially marginalised chronic illness such as Long COVID. Drawing on my experience as a disabled practitioner, and situating this within extant literature on disability and psy, I take an autoethnographic approach to exploring opportunities and challenges in bridging the interdisciplinary divide. I argue that unacknowledged institutional ableism within psy reproduces and is reinforced by physical and attitudinal barriers for disabled practitioners and service users, engendering under-representation of disability in psychotherapy professions and lacunae in disability-affirmative conceptual resources. Additionally, I propose that hermeneutical lacunae are bolstered by documented defensive clinical practices pertaining to disability. After discussing a wealth of opportunities for integration offered by disability studies, and noting the institutional failure within psy to embrace disability-related demographic and epistemic diversity, I question whether ongoing epistemic and social exclusions within the psy disciplines constitute a case of 'willful epistemic ableism'. Drawing on theorising vis-à-vis epistemic injustice and epistemologies of ignorance, I signal a form of systematic, actively maintained and structurally incentivised (motivated) non-knowing that results in collective failure among dominant groups to recognise established hermeneutical resources of the disabled community and allies. I conclude with suggestions of how this form of epistemic injustice might be mitigated.

(Re)making Scales: Communicative enfranchisement in Women's Narrative Discourses About Health Dismissal

Dismissal of women's health concerns is a discursive phenomenon with social and material consequences. A burgeoning literature documents how women experience dismissal through various forms of disenfranchising talk. Yet, women are not only subjected to disenfranchising talk; they are called to respond to it. Meaning, analyses of disenfranchisement should also examine efforts toward enfranchisement. One process by which scholars can study communicative (dis)enfranchisement is through people's scalar activity, or how they contextualize experiences at different levels of social reality. Studies of scale demonstrate that the language people use to narrate their personal experiences has meaning for how they position themselves in relation to other social actors, as well as how they make statements about what matters, how much, and to whom. Drawing on 36 interviews with women whose health issues have been dismissed, we apply scale as a theoretical lens and methodological tool to study how women use language in particular, meaningful, and patterned ways in narratives about health dismissal. Our findings suggest that women's narrative discourse is enfranchising in so much as women critique, resist, and transform the contexts of their dismissal. We document how they and others scale "realness" and "normality" across narrated and narrating events. We also note how women scale up from their own experiences to women's experiences writ large, asserting truth claims about issues borne of the broader U.S. healthcare system. Findings have implications for how critical health communication researchers study how women's health issues are constructed in talk.

Epistemic injustice, healthcare disparities and the missing pipeline: reflections on the exclusion of disabled scholars from health research

People with disabilities are subject to multiple forms of health-related and wider social disparities; carefully focused research is required to inform more inclusive, safe and effective healthcare practice and policy. Through lived experience, disabled people are well positioned to identify and persistently pursue problems and opportunities within existing health provisions that may be overlooked by a largely non-disabled research community. Thus, the academy can play an important role in shining a light on the perspectives and insights from within the disability community, and combined with policy decisions, these perspectives and insights have a better opportunity to become integrated into the fabric of public life, within healthcare and beyond. However, despite the potential benefits that could be yielded by greater inclusivity, in this paper we describe barriers within the UK academy confronting disabled people who wish to embark on health research. We do this by drawing on published findings, and via the lived experience of the first author, who has struggled for over 3 years to find an accessible PhD programme as a person with energy limiting conditions who is largely confined to the home in the UK. First, we situate the discussion in the wider perspective of epistemic injustice in health research. Second, we consider evidence of epistemic injustice among disabled researchers, focusing primarily on what philosophers Kidd and Carel (2017, p 184) describe as 'strategies of exclusion'. Third, we offer recommendations for overcoming these barriers to improve the pipeline of researchers with disabilities in the academy.

Participatory design of bodysymptoms.org: An interactive web resource to explain multisystem functional somatic symptoms

OBJECTIVE

There is a lack of trustworthy information about Functional Somatic Symptoms (FSS) on the internet. This means integrative bio-psycho-social explanations of FSS and related health advice are not readily available to the public. To explore and address this problem, we carried out the bodysymptoms project, with the aim to build a website which presents current widely accepted explanations for FSS and shows how different explanations are inter-connected.

METHODS

Bodysymptoms was set up as a research-in-action project with a diverse range of international stakeholder-participants, combining approaches from patient and public involvement in healthcare with participatory design. 7 participants with lived experience of multi-system functional symptoms took part in the project and measures of meaningful engagement throughout the project were rated highly. This manuscript describes the methodology by which the website was developed.

RESULTS

Through iterative cycles we determined the requirements for an interactive explanatory model and co-created a novel online health interactive resource with integrated actionable health advice. The target end user are young adults with persistent physical symptoms, maintained by functional mechanisms. The overall aim is to empower people at risk of developing functional disorders to seek better health outcomes. The website is intended to be used prior to or alongside engagement with healthcare.

CONCLUSION

Bringing lived experience and multi-disciplinary perspectives into dialogue through participatory design can harness the power of research to create immediate shared value. This project has resulted in a usable open access website, bodysymptoms.org, which provides education about FSS for patients, healthcare professionals and members of the public looking to understand FSS.

Stigmatisation in clinical consultations for persistent physical symptoms/functional disorders: A best fit framework synthesis

INTRODUCTION

Stigma is a social attribute that links a person to an undesirable characteristic and leads to actions that increase the social distance from that person. This includes different or discriminatory treatment. Stigma is common in healthcare, particularly in people with persistent physical symptoms (PPS) and functional disorders (FD). The aim of this study is to create a new actionable framework to aid understanding of stigmatisation in consultations about PPS/FD and to improve the consultation experiences.

METHODS

This framework development used the Best Fit Framework approach to data collected for a scoping review of stigma in functional disorders. The stages included selection of an initial framework from existing conceptual models, mapping quote data from published papers to the framework and an iterative process of revision and re-mapping. The final framework was tested by re-mapping all the quote data to the framework following classification rules.

RESULTS

253 quotes were obtained from the results sections of qualitative studies from a previous scoping review. The framework comprises of prejudice, stereotypes and actions to increase social distance. Stereotype refers to the focus of stigma: this may be the condition, the patient, or their behaviour. Actions that increase social distance include: othering; denial; non-explanation; minimising, norm-breaking; and psychologising. By breaking down stigma into recognisable components, the framework provides a way to understand the difficulties that patients and clinicians face during consultations and a way to develop intervention materials.

CONCLUSIONS

This new framework for stigma in clinical consultations for PPS/FDs provides a useful tool for the study of stigma in clinical consultations.

That was just your life: rethinking dementia for advance directives

Over the past decades, literature in dementia ethics has extensively looked at moral questions revolving around the care of older people living with dementia. Particularly prevalent are autonomy-related concerns regarding topics such as advance directives. In this paper, we argue that these discussions are crucially premised on how dementia is understood and represented. Despite the multiplicity of dementia presentations in people, the dominant discourse predominantly frames dementia as 'monstrous,' an 'enemy,' a destructive experience in need of eradication. We contend that such a monolithic approach, from a moral standpoint, is problematic in several respects. Indeed, framing heavily influences the way dementia is understood and experienced, leading to stigmatization, bias, and distress. Not only does it influence decisions and discussions on advance directives, but we argue that this flawed understanding of dementia is rooted in and contributes to epistemic harm. In the first section, we introduce the ethics of advance directives. More specifically, we introduce the view developed by Dworkin who has largely influenced the debate by making the case for advance directives by grounding them in the principles of autonomy and beneficence. In the second section, we show how dementia is still mostly framed monolithically as a 'destructive experience.' We then show that this framing is problematic because it oversteps the different pathologies dementia implies, which leads to an inaccurate representation of the condition. In the third section, we present possible alternative framings: dementia as normal aging, a person-centered care framework, and an embodied view. In the fourth section, drawing on recent developments in the epistemic injustice literature, we explore how maintaining and utilizing flawed understandings of dementia may lead to distinct moral-epistemic harms for those living with dementia and inform ongoing discussions on advance directives. Finally, in the concluding section, we return to the case of advance directives and what the implications of rethinking dementia are.

One or many labels? a longitudinal qualitative study of patients' journey to diagnosis at a specialist NHS Postural Tachycardia Syndrome (PoTS) clinic

OBJECTIVES

Postural Tachycardia Syndrome (PoTS) is a poorly understood syndrome of multiple disabling symptoms. This study explored the process of seeking a diagnosis of PoTS. Analysis focused on changes before and after participants' first appointment with a national PoTS clinic, and explored whether a diagnosis is beneficial in the context of multiple co-occurring conditions and an absence of licenced treatments.

DESIGN

A longitudinal, qualitative study.

METHODS

Participants (n = 15) in this nested qualitative study were recruited from a larger study of people who had been newly referred to a National specialist NHS Cardiology PoTS service. Semi-structured interviews were conducted remotely before, and 6 months after their first appointment with the clinic. Data was analysed longitudinally and inductively using Reflexive Thematic Analysis.

RESULTS

Three overarching themes were identified: "Slowly moving forward and finding positive gains", "Needing more pieces of the puzzle to see the bigger picture", and "The value and impact of investigations". Findings suggested that not much had changed in the 6 months between interviews. Participants were moving forward in terms of diagnoses, treatment and adjustment following their appointment, but many were still seeking further clarity and possible diagnoses. Investigations, appointments, and new-found problems, continued to have a substantial impact over time.

CONCLUSIONS

The journey to diagnosis for patients with suspected PoTS appeared to promote acceptance of self, and of limitations posed by symptoms. However, many participants continued their search for an explanation for every symptom experience, and this may become increasingly complex, the more labels that have been acquired. Lack of clarity contributed to ongoing difficulties for this patient group alongside fraught relations with health care professionals (HCPs). A more coherent, integrated approach which is communicated clearly to patients is recommended.

Relevance of meeting general outpatients' information needs to their perceptions of healthcare quality in a hospital in Ghana: a Healthcare Quality Survey using modified SERVQUAL analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients determine quality of healthcare by their perception of the gap between the healthcare they experience/receive and that which they expect. This can be influenced by the ability of healthcare staff to adequately communicate information about the healthcare provided. This study assessed the level of relevance of meeting patients' information needs with respect to their assessment of healthcare quality in a private hospital's general outpatient department in Ghana.

DESIGN

Study design was cross-sectional using exit self-administered questionnaires among 390 outpatients. Healthcare quality was measured using a modified form of the Service Quality model gap analysis (gap between experience and expectations). A negative gap signifies unmet patient expectations. Microsoft Excel and Stata V.15.0 were used for analysis using t-test and multiple linear regression. A p value ≤0.05 denotes statistical significance.

FINDINGS

The mean percentage of patients' expectations of quality of healthcare was 87.6% (SE 0.031), while patient experience was 86.0% (SE 0.029), with a significant negative gap of -0.08 (p<0.002). Their highest expectation of the quality of healthcare was for their information needs to be met, with a mean score of 4.44 (SE 0.03). Two of the four items under the information needs dimension that showed no statistically significant gaps were 'saying all their problems' (gap=0.00; p<0.9) and 'explanation of treatment/medications' (gap=0.01; p<0.6). Those with statistically significant negative gaps were 'explanation of investigations and procedures' (gap=-0.18; p<0.0001) and 'explanation of the diagnoses' (gap=-0.11; p<0.02), signifying unmet expectations.

CONCLUSIONS

The outpatient's greatest need for quality healthcare in this study was for their information needs to be met. Providing information on patient diagnoses and investigations are the areas least likely to be adequately communicated to patients.

Stigmatisation in medical encounters for persistent physical symptoms/functional disorders: Scoping review and thematic synthesis

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a scoping review of stigma in medical encounters for persistent physical symptoms and functional disorders (PPS/FD). Stigma is a social attribute that links a person to an undesirable characteristic. It has been extensively studied in relation to mental illness but less so in relation to PPS/FD.

METHODS

We followed PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines for scoping reviews. Searches for were designed using the SPIDER tool. We used descriptive and thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The searches identified 68 articles, of which 32 were eligible for inclusion. 31 out of the 32 studies used a qualitative methodology. 8 studies used an explicit definition of stigma, of which 6 used the Goffman (1963) definition. Only 2 studies directly examined clinical consultations, the remainder relied on recalled accounts by patients or professionals. Descriptive analysis identified the focus of the studies included: patient-physician interaction (n = 13); health care professionals' perceptions (n = 7); experiences of illness/stigma (n = 6); broader meaning of illness (n = 3); and patients' experiences of stigma in health care consultations (n = 3).

CONCLUSION

Patients experience stigmatisation in consultations for a wide range of PPS/FD. This suggests the presence of structural stigmatisation.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

There is a need for effective stigma reduction strategies in consultations about persistent physical symptoms.

Emotions of endometriosis in clinical encounters: An analysis of women's experiences of health care

BACKGROUND

A large number of illnesses that lack physical visibility are characterised by troubled clinical encounters. Endometriosis is one such condition with very real and often debilitating symptoms that remain invisible to the clinician's eye, but are experienced and lived by the patient.

METHOD

This paper probes into two first person accounts of endometriosis to find out how endometriosis patients experience health care. The Tiger and the Cage: A Memoir of a Body in Crisis (2022) by Emma Bolden and Vagina Problems: Endometriosis, Painful Sex, and Other Taboo Topics (2020) by Lara Parker are both memoirs that details on the trivialisation and delegitimization of the women's accounts of their own lived reality by a health care system that often privileges medical evidence over lived experiences of the patients. After giving a brief introduction on the condition, the paper goes on to detail on the method and conceptual frameworks chosen for analysis. This is followed by an in-depth analysis into the two texts using thematic analysis proposed by Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke to identify shared patterns of meanings in the texts.

DISCUSSION

The identified themes take the form of emotions repeatedly narrated by the women. The findings indicate instances of disrespect, epistemic invalidation and compromised autonomy, due to which six shared categories of negative emotions are experienced by the patients: self-doubt, shame, fear, powerlessness, self-blame and anger.

CONCLUSION

The paper concludes by indicating the urgency of improved medical training, that better educates and facilitates health care professionals in dealing with conditions with complicated aetiology, difficult diagnosis and no cure.

Barriers to healthcare access and experiences of stigma: Findings from a coproduced Long Covid case-finding study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Long Covid is often stigmatised, particularly in people who are disadvantaged within society. This may prevent them from seeking help and could lead to widening health inequalities. This coproduced study with a Community Advisory Board (CAB) of people with Long Covid aimed to understand healthcare and wider barriers and stigma experienced by people with probable Long Covid.

METHODS

An active case finding approach was employed to find adults with probable, but not yet clinically diagnosed, Long Covid in two localities in London (Camden and Merton) and Derbyshire, England. Interviews explored the barriers to care and the stigma faced by participants and were analysed thematically. This study forms part of the STIMULATE-ICP Collaboration.

FINDINGS

Twenty-three interviews were completed. Participants reported limited awareness of what Long Covid is and the available pathways to management. There was considerable self-doubt among participants, sometimes reinforced by interactions with healthcare professionals (HCPs). Participants questioned their deservedness in seeking healthcare support for their symptoms. Hesitancy to engage with healthcare services was motivated by fear of needing more investigation and concerns regarding judgement about the ability to carry out caregiving responsibilities. It was also motivated by the complexity of the clinical presentation and fear of all symptoms being attributed to poor mental health. Participants also reported trying to avoid overburdening the health system. These difficulties were compounded by experiences of stigma and discrimination. The emerging themes reaffirmed a framework of epistemic injustice in relation to Long Covid, where creating, interpreting and conveying knowledge has varied credibility based on the teller's identity characteristics and/or the level of their interpretive resources.

CONCLUSION

We have codeveloped recommendations based on the findings. These include early signposting to services, dedicating protected time to listening to people with Long Covid, providing a holistic approach in care pathways, and working to mitigate stigma. Regardless of the diagnosis, people experiencing new symptoms must be encouraged to seek timely medical help. Clear public health messaging is needed among communities already disadvantaged by epistemic injustice to raise awareness of Long Covid, and to share stories that encourage seeking care and to illustrate the adverse effects of stigma.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study was coproduced with a CAB made up of 23 members including HCPs, people with lived experience of Long Covid and other stakeholders.

The value of experts by experience in social domain supervision in the Netherlands: results from a 'mystery guests' project

BACKGROUND

User involvement and participation in the supervision of the quality of care is an important topic for many healthcare inspectorates. It offers regulators an additional view on quality, increases the legitimacy and accountability of the inspectorate, empowers users and enhancing the public's trust in the inspectorate. To assess the accessibility of the local governmental social domain services the Joint Inspectorate Social Domain in the Netherlands worked together with people with intellectual disabilities performing as 'mystery guests' in an innovative project. This paper describes the findings of the evaluation of this project.

METHODS

People with intellectual disabilities living at home on their own may need some help with daily activities such as administrative tasks, raising children, household tasks, managing debts or finding work. In the Netherlands they have to arrange this help at their municipality. The goal of this project was to find out how easily people with intellectual disabilities could get help from their municipality. The participants were equal partners with the JISD inspectors from the beginning: in constructing an inspection framework, in acting as mystery guest with a fictive support request, reported back the results by storytelling.

RESULTS

The evaluation of the project showed that the JISD succeeded in their key aspect of the project: the goal to involve people with intellectual disabilities in a leading role from the beginning until the end. Their perspectives and preferences were the starting point of supervision. Pain points in accessibility became clear straight away and gave important insights for both inspectors as municipality professionals. Municipalities started to improve their services and evaluated the improvements with the clients. Furthermore, the impact on the participants themselves was also huge: they felt being taken seriously, valued and empowered.

CONCLUSION

Involving people with intellectual disabilities as participants in all phases of supervision processes contributes to more relevant and useful outcomes, creates mutual understanding of perspectives, as affirmed by both municipalities and inspectors, and creates empowerment of the participants. Furthermore, it fits perfectly within the United Nation Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and the current development of 'value driven regulation'.

'We have no services for you… so you have to make the best out of it': A qualitative study of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome patients' dissatisfaction with healthcare services

INTRODUCTION

People should have access to healthcare services that are effective, safe and secure, patient-centred, and coordinated and continuous. One group that has consistently reported negative experiences and feels dissatisfied with services are patients with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME)/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS). The objective of this study was to develop a deeper understanding of the experiences of dissatisfaction among ME/CFS patients and explore the reasons for such dissatisfaction.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth interviews with 48 people from 24 households (comprising patients and family members), providing insight into the experiences of 37 ME/CFS sufferers in Norway. The participants were purposively sampled and included persons of different ages, genders, time since having the condition (3-30 years), and severity.

RESULTS

Four main themes were developed: (1) 'Nonexistent services' cover patients' experience that healthcare services had nothing to offer them after receiving their ME/CFS-diagnosis. (2) 'Nonpersonalised services' documents experiences where patients did receive services, which in theory was appropriate for relieving a specific health problem, but in practice were experienced as inappropriate because they were not adapted to the patient's need. (3) 'Slow services' address patients' experience of getting services too late (or too little) to be useful. (4) 'Wrong services' comprise patients' experiences of being offered and/or 'forced' to accept services that they felt were inappropriate for their health problems.

CONCLUSIONS

Providers' lacking knowledge of the condition and lack of precise recommendations for follow up may partly explain unsatisfactory experiences. Providers' belief (or disbelief) in the condition could furthermore influence caregiving. Also, systemic issues in the healthcare sector, like high workloads and bureaucracy, can negatively affect care provision. Finally, users' unsatisfactory experiences may also be due to a lack of patient involvement in the design of such services. Further research should investigate how patients can be involved in service design, and also providers' perspectives on caregiving and the barriers they experience for providing high-quality care.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The ME-patient organisation suggested research topics to the call from which this study got funding. Patients and caregivers provided feedback during analysis and interpretation of data.

Acquiring a new understanding of illness and agency: a narrative study of recovering from chronic fatigue syndrome

BACKGROUND

The condition known as chronic fatigue syndrome or myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) is poorly understood. Simplified medical models tend to neglect the complexity of illness, contributing to a terrain of uncertainty, dilemmas and predicaments. However, despite pessimistic pictures of no cure and poor prognosis, some patients recover.

PURPOSE

This study's purpose is to provide insight into people's experiences of suffering and recovery from very severe CFS/ME and illuminate understanding of how and why changes became possible.

METHODS

Fourteen former patients were interviewed about their experiences of returning to health. A narrative analysis was undertaken to explore participants' experiences and understandings. We present the result through one participant's story.

RESULTS

The analysis yielded a common plotline with a distinct turning point. Participants went through a profound narrative shift, change in mindset and subsequent long-time work to actively pursue their own healing. Their narrative understandings of being helpless victims of disease were replaced by a more complex view of causality and illness and a new sense of self-agency developed.

DISCUSSION

We discuss the illness narratives in relation to the disease model and its shortcomings, the different voices dominating the stories at different times in a clinically, conceptually, and emotionally challenging area.

Young adults' experiences of living with paediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome. An interview study

AIM

This article explores experiential knowledge of living with paediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome (PANS), and the factors that are associated with perceived good care.

METHODS

Ten people with lived experience of PANS participated, five women and five men aged 19-34. Semi-structured interviews were used to explore their experience of living with PANS and their encounters with healthcare. Thematic analysis was carried out to identify central themes in the transcribed interviews.

RESULTS

The study revealed a group of young adults living fairly isolated lives, dependent on care from relatives. To them, the illness was a tangible presence. They perceived a lack of knowledge among healthcare staff on PANS in healthcare, and negative consequences linked to this. In addition, their experience-based knowledge of their own illness is devalued in healthcare encounters. A feeling of being pushed around in healthcare, without anyone taking responsibility for the treatment, emerged in the interviews. The participants emphasized the need for increased knowledge among staff to identify PANS and be able to offer effective treatment.

CONCLUSION

There is a need to increase the knowledge about PANS in healthcare and to coordinating care between neurology, immunology and psychiatry. To be able to offer evidence-based care to children with PANS, in-depth knowledge is needed about aetiology, treatment effects, and user experiences and preferences.

Epistemic problems with mental health legislation in the doctor-patient relationship

Mental health legislation that requires patients to accept 'care' has come under increasing scrutiny, prompted primarily by a human rights ethic. Epistemic issues in mental health have received some attention, however, less attention has been paid to the possible epistemic problems of mental health legislation existing. In this manuscript, we examine the epistemic problems that arise from the presence of such legislation, both for patients without a prior experience of being detained under such legislation and for those with this experience. We also examine how the doctor is legally obligated to compound the epistemic problems by the knowledge they prioritise and the failure to generate new knowledge. Specifically, we describe the problems of testimonial epistemic injustice, epistemic silencing, and epistemic smothering, and address the possible justification provided by epistemic paternalism. We suggest that there is no reasonable epistemic justification for mental health legislation that creates an environment that fundamentally unbalances the doctor-patient relationship. Significant positive reasons to counterbalance this are needed to justify the continuation of such legislation.

Epistemic injustice in the therapeutic relationship in psychiatry

The notion of epistemic injustice was first applied to cases of discrimination against women and people of color but has since come to refer to wider issues related to social justice. This paper applies the concept of epistemic injustice to problems in the therapeutic relationship between psychiatrists and psychiatric patients. To this end, it is necessary to acknowledge psychiatrists as professionals with expertise in treating mental disorders, which impair the patient's rationality, sometimes leading to false beliefs, such as delusions. This paper classifies the characteristic features of the therapeutic relationship in psychiatry into three stages: those of a professional-client relationship, those of a doctor-patient relationship, and those of a psychiatrist-psychiatric patient relationship. Epistemic injustice is prevalent in psychiatric care owing to prejudice against patients with mental disorders. However, it is also predisposed by the roles that psychiatrists play in relation to psychiatric patients. This paper suggests some ameliorative measures based on the analysis.

Epistemic Injustice and Nonmaleficence

Epistemic injustice has undergone a steady growth in the medical ethics literature throughout the last decade as many ethicists have found it to be a powerful tool for describing and assessing morally problematic situations in healthcare. However, surprisingly scarce attention has been devoted to how epistemic injustice relates to physicians' professional duties on a conceptual level. I argue that epistemic injustice, specifically testimonial, collides with physicians' duty of nonmaleficence and should thus be actively fought against in healthcare encounters on the ground of professional conduct. I do so by fleshing out how Fricker's conception of testimonial injustice conflicts with the duty of nonmaleficence as defined in Beauchamp and Childress on theoretical grounds. From there, I argue that testimonial injustice produces two distinct types of harm, epistemic and non-epistemic. Epistemic harms are harms inflicted by the physician to the patient qua knower, whereas non-epistemic harms are inflicted to the patient qua patient. This latter case holds serious clinical implications and represent a failure of the process of due care on the part of the physician. I illustrate this through examples taken from the literature on fibromyalgia syndrome and show how testimonial injustice causes wrongful harm to patients, making it maleficent practice. Finally, I conclude on why nonmaleficence as a principle will not be normatively enough to fully address the problem of epistemic injustice in healthcare but nevertheless may serve as a good starting point in attempting to do so.

Clinician-associated traumatization from difficult medical encounters: Results from a qualitative interview study on the Ehlers-Danlos Syndromes

Patients with hypermobile Ehlers Danlos Syndrome often experience psychological distress resulting from the perceived hostility and disinterest of their clinicians. We conducted 26 in-depth interviews with patients to understand the origins of this trauma and how it could be addressed in practice. We found that the cumulative effects of numerous negative encounters lead patients to lose trust in their healthcare providers and the healthcare system, and to develop acute anxiety about returning to clinic to seek further care. We describe this as clinician-associated traumatization. Ultimately, our interviewees described the result of this traumatization as worse - but preventable - health outcomes.

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.

Examining the knowledge work of person-centred care: Towards epistemic reciprocity

OBJECTIVE

It is increasingly recognised that when healthcare staff fails to give adequate credence to patients' illness-related knowledge work, this epistemic injustice undermines person-centred care. Therefore, we set out to examine the experiences of people with long-term conditions with knowledge work in healthcare settings to identify changes needed to strengthen person-centred primary care.

METHODS

We designed a qualitative study and recruited people with long-term conditions in the UK. We conducted individual interviews (analysed using interpretive phenomenological analysis) and focus groups (analysed using thematic analysis), then integrated findings from both methods through an approach focused on their complementarity.

RESULTS

Participants described how successful person-centred consultations were characterised by a negotiation between patient and doctor and moments of broad exploration, reflexive listening, and reciprocal enquiry, which allowed for epistemic reciprocity.

CONCLUSIONS

Epistemic reciprocity is a core component of person-centred clinical consultations, fostering the co-creation of new knowledge of patient experience and need through the interactive knowledge work of patient and doctor.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Medical education could benefit from initiatives that develop knowledge use and integration skills across primary care professionals. Accommodating for patient's and doctor's knowledge work during clinical practice requires redesigning the consultation process, including timing, headspace, pre-consultation, and post-consultation work.

Automated opioid risk scores: a case for machine learning-induced epistemic injustice in healthcare

Artificial intelligence-based (AI) technologies such as machine learning (ML) systems are playing an increasingly relevant role in medicine and healthcare, bringing about novel ethical and epistemological issues that need to be timely addressed. Even though ethical questions connected to epistemic concerns have been at the center of the debate, it is going unnoticed how epistemic forms of injustice can be ML-induced, specifically in healthcare. I analyze the shortcomings of an ML system currently deployed in the USA to predict patients' likelihood of opioid addiction and misuse (PDMP algorithmic platforms). Drawing on this analysis, I aim to show that the wrong inflicted on epistemic agents involved in and affected by these systems' decision-making processes can be captured through the lenses of Miranda Fricker's account of hermeneutical injustice. I further argue that ML-induced hermeneutical injustice is particularly harmful due to what I define as an automated hermeneutical appropriation from the side of the ML system. The latter occurs if the ML system establishes meanings and shared hermeneutical resources without allowing for human oversight, impairing understanding and communication practices among stakeholders involved in medical decision-making. Furthermore and very much crucially, an automated hermeneutical appropriation can be recognized if physicians are strongly limited in their possibilities to safeguard patients from ML-induced hermeneutical injustice. Overall, my paper should expand the analysis of ethical issues raised by ML systems that are to be considered epistemic in nature, thus contributing to bridging the gap between these two dimensions in the ongoing debate.

Making sense of the delegitimation experiences of people suffering from indoor air problems in their homes

Purpose

Little is known about the delegitimation experiences of people who associate their health problems with the indoor air quality of their homes (i.e., indoor air sufferers). From other contexts, it is known that people suffering from contested illnesses frequently report delegitimation from authorities and laypersons. Therefore, we analysed delegitimation experiences among indoor air sufferers, focusing on how they explain why others delegitimize them.

Method

Two types of qualitative data—semi-structured interviews with eight people and essays written by 28 people—were subjected to a thematic analysis.

Results

Thematic analysis revealed three themes: 1) lack of understanding; 2) others’ lack of morality; and 3) social discrimination and inequality.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that indoor air sufferers are vulnerable as individuals and as a group, and suggests that authorities working with people suffering from indoor air problems in homes must pay more attention to sufferers’ ability/willingness to trust people and the system responsible for their care.

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.

"I feel like my body is broken": exploring the experiences of people living with long COVID

PURPOSE

Long COVID, an illness affecting a subset of individuals after COVID-19, is distressing, poorly understood, and reduces quality of life. The objective of this sub-study was to better understand and explore individuals' experiences with long COVID and commonly reported symptoms, using qualitative data collected from open-ended survey responses.

METHODS

Data were collected from adults living with long COVID who participated in a larger observational online survey. Participants had the option of answering seven open-ended items. Data from the open-ended items were analyzed following guidelines for reflective thematic analysis.

RESULTS

From 213 participants who were included in the online survey, 169 participants who primarily self-identified as women (88.2%), aged 40-49 (33.1%), who had been experiencing long COVID symptoms for ≥ 6 months (74%) provided open-ended responses. Four overlapping and interconnected themes were identified: (1) Long COVID symptoms are numerous and wearing, (2) The effects of long COVID are pervasive, (3) Physical activity is difficult and, in some cases, not possible, and (4) Asking for help when few are listening, and little is working.

CONCLUSION

Findings reaffirm prior research, highlighting the complex nature of long COVID. Further, results show the ways individuals affected by the illness are negatively impacted and have had to alter their daily activities. Participants recounted the challenges faced when advocating for themselves, adapting to new limitations, and navigating healthcare systems. The varied relapsing-remitting symptoms, unknown prognosis, and deep sense of loss over one's prior identity suggest interventions are needed to support this population.

Long Covid at the crossroads: Comparisons and lessons from the treatment of patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS)

Whilst parallels have been drawn between Long Covid and myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), there is a well-documented history of negative stereotyping and marginalisation of patients with ME/CFS. A socio-politically oriented comparison of scientific, clinical and societal responses to Long Covid and ME/CFS is thus important to prevent similar harms arising among Long Covid patients. We identify four reasons for injustices in the treatment of ME/CFS patients, and discuss the risk of Long Covid following a similar trajectory. We conclude with policy and practice recommendations to help prevent such injustices arising again, including consideration of critical reflexivity in medical education.

Support amid uncertainty: Long COVID illness experiences and the role of online communities

Long COVID is characterized by persistent and debilitating long-term symptoms from COVID-19. Many persons with Long COVID began gathering in online communities during the early phases of the pandemic to share their illness experiences. This qualitative interview study explored the subjective experiences of 20 persons with Long COVID recruited from five online communities. Their understandings of illness and associated implications for social relationships with family and friends, healthcare professionals, and online community members were explored. Three themes were identified from our analysis, including (1) complex and unpredictable illness experienced amid an evolving understanding of the pandemic; (2) frustration, dismissal, and gaslighting in healthcare interactions; and (3) validation and support from online communities. These findings highlight the significant uncertainty that persons with Long COVID navigated, the features of their often dismaying healthcare experiences, and the ways in which online communities aided them in understanding their illness.

A breach in the social contract: Limited participation and limited evidence in COVID-19 responses

Medically trained health professionals have been central to the development of policy responses to the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) crisis. In their multiple roles-as clinicians, public health leaders, members of scientific advisory boards, and also as media pundits and health professionals-they have helped shape discourses of science-based policy options during the first 2 years of the pandemic. In particular, health professionals as a collective voice insisted on the necessity of society-wide measures of social control to curb the morbidity and mortality of the virus. These measures, in turn, informed the political and moral imagination of the political class, the media and the larger public. Yet, as emerging evidence suggests, measures of social control posed a serious and long-term risk for health equity. In this discussion piece on the first 2 years of COVID-related public health directives, we interrogate the tensions that advocating for extensive and protracted measures of social control can pose to the social contract between medicine and society, health equity and democracy. To illustrate these tensions, we discuss the public fallout between vocal members of the OSAT, an ad hoc biomedical-led organization, and the Government of Ontario in light of the disagreement on the scope of 'stay home' orders to manage the third wave of the pandemic in the Spring of 2021 and, more recently, the mass protest against mass-scale public health measures in Ottawa, Canada. We argue that while decision making under emergency conditions is a difficult task, the legitimacy of the social contract between medicine and society depends on medical experts' judicious exercise of public health ethics principles. We offer a set of recommendations for building a more collaborative response to future health crises.

Redressing injustices: how women students enact agency in undergraduate medical education

This study presents descriptions of epistemic injustice in the experiences of women medical students and provides accounts about how these students worked to redress these injustices. Epistemic injustice is both the immediate discrediting of an individual's knowledge based on their social identity and the act of persistently ignoring possibilities for other ways of knowing. Using critical narrative interviews and personal reflections over an eight-month period, 22 women students during their first year of medical school described instances when their knowledge and experience was discredited and ignored, then the ways they enacted agency to redress these injustices. Participants described three distinct ways they worked to redress injustices: reclaiming why they belong in medicine, speaking up and calling out the curriculum, and uplifting one another. This study has implications for recognizing medical students as whole individuals with lived histories and experiences and advocates for recognizing medical students' perspectives as valuable sources of knowledge.

Epistemic solidarity in medicine and healthcare

In this article, I apply the concept of solidarity to collective knowledge practices in healthcare. Generally, solidarity acknowledges that people are dependent on each other in many respects, and it captures those support practices that people engage in out of concern for others in whom they recognise a relevant similarity. Drawing on the rich literature on solidarity in bioethics and beyond, this article specifically discusses the role that epistemic solidarity can play in healthcare. It thus focuses, in particular, on solidarity’s relationship with justice and injustice. In this regard, it is argued (1) that justice and solidarity are two equally important and complementary values that should both be considered in healthcare practices and institutions and (2) that solidarity often arises in unjust situations and can be a means to bring about justice. I transfer these ‘general’ insights about solidarity to knowledge practices in healthcare and link them to the discussion about epistemic injustices in healthcare and how to overcome them. I argue that epistemic solidarity can play an important role in overcoming epistemic injustices as well as—and independently from its contribution to justice—in knowledge production in medicine more generally. To demonstrate how epistemic solidarity can add to our understanding of collective knowledge practices, I discuss two examples: patients sharing their medical data for research purposes and healthcare professionals’ engagement with patients to better understand their afflictions.

Communication about distress and well-being: Epistemic and ethical considerations

Communication about well-being and distress involves multiple stakeholders, including experts by experience (EBE), researchers, clinical practitioners, interpreters, and translators. Communication can involve a variety of discourses and languages and each of the stakeholders may employ diverging epistemologies to understand and explain experiences. These epistemologies may link to different sources of authority and be articulated using particular linguistic resources. Epistemic injustice can occur when stakeholders, intentionally or unintentionally, fail to recognise the validity of other stakeholders' ways of conceptualising and verbalising their experience of well-being and distress. Language lies at the heart of the risk of epistemic injustice involved in the process of expressing well-being and distress as seen in: 1) the interface between divergent discourses on well-being and distress (e.g., biomedical vs. spiritual); and 2) communications involving multiple linguistic resources, which can be subdivided into multi-language communications involving a) translation of assessment measures, and b) interpreted interactions. Some of the challenges of multi-language communication can be addressed by translators or interpreters who strive for conceptual equivalence. We argue, however, that all stakeholders have an important role as "epistemic brokers" in the languaging of possible epistemological differences. Effective epistemic brokering requires that all stakeholders are reflexively and critically aware of the risks of epistemic injustice inherent in multi-language communication. The article concludes with a set of prompts to help raise stakeholder awareness and reflexivity when engaging in communication about well-being and distress.

Making space for disability studies within a structurally competent medical curriculum: reflections on long Covid

While critically informed approaches to medical education are increasingly advocated in literature, discussion of the potential role of disability studies in informing pedagogy and practice is largely lacking. The emergence of long Covid, alongside the strong possibility of a wave of covid-related disability, underlines an urgent need for medicine to develop more contextualised, nuanced and structurally competent understandings of chronic illness and disability. This article argues that the integration of thinking from disability studies into medical curricula offers a pathway to such understanding, informing a more equitable, holistic and patient-centred approach to practice. Further, a structurally competent, antiableist approach positions clinicians and patients as allies, working together within a structural context that constrains both parties. Such positioning may mitigate tensions within the clinical encounter, tensions that are well documented in the realm of marginalised chronic illness and disability. While the possibilities arising from a partnership between disability studies and medicine are numerous, the foci here are the social relational model of disability and the concept of psycho-emotional disablism, within a broader framework of critical disability studies. It is argued that inadequate healthcare provision and policy in the realm of long Covid can be understood as a form of structural and psycho-emotional disablism, arising from and reinforcing an ableist psychosocial imaginary permeated with neoliberal assumptions, and carrying a risk of furthering both disability and impairment. After considering long Covid through these particular lenses, the article concludes with a discussion of how a partnership between disability studies and a structurally competent approach to medical education might translate into practice.

Epistemic injustice as a bridge between medical sociology and disability studies

This paper explores the potential of the perspective of epistemic injustice to reconcile medical sociology's attention to the micro level of experience and interpersonal exchange, and disability studies' focus on the macro level of oppressive structures. The first part of the paper provides an overview of the concept of epistemic injustice and its key instances-testimonial, hermeneutical, and contributory injustice. We also consider previous applications of the concept in the fields of health care and disability, and we contextualise our investigation by discussing key features of postsocialism from the perspective of epistemic injustice. In the second part, we explore specific epistemic injustices experienced by people who use disability support by drawing on interviews and focus groups conducted with parents of disabled children in present-day Bulgaria. In our conclusion, we revisit our methodological and theoretical points about the potential of epistemic injustice to facilitate mutually beneficial exchanges between medical sociology and disability studies.

Separating Patients with SEID from Those with CFS in the French ME/CFS Association, with Some Thoughts on Nomenclature

In 2015, the American Institute of Medicine, now called the National Academy of Medicine, (IOM/NAM) proposed new diagnostic criteria for both Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) and a new label: Systemic Exertion Intolerance Disease (SEID). This study aimed to evaluate the SEID criteria among members of the French Association of ME/CFS (ASFC) and their opinion about this new name. We sent an anonymous questionnaire to 494 ASFC members, using French-translated questions derived from the IOM/NAM tool kit. Among the 178/231 responding subjects who reported ME/CFS diagnosis, 150 (84%) met the criteria of SEID. For each set of questions, we identified some of them that significantly distinguished SEID from non-SEID patients concerning unrefreshing sleep, cognitive disorders, and orthostatic intolerance items. Forty-six percent of the respondents considered the "SEID" terminology as more appropriate than "CFS", 39% considered it inappropriate, and 15% had no opinion. Some questions better identified the SEID criteria. The IOM/NAM SEID criteria captured a large part of ASFC members suffering from ME/CFS. However, this new SEID label was not well accepted by the subjects, nor were the other denominations, suggesting that a better term should be found. Pending development of specific markers, further work with patient communities is needed to find a more suitable label.

What Patients Prioritize for Research to Improve Their Lives and How Their Priorities Get Dismissed again

Health researchers increasingly work with patients in a participatory fashion. Active patient involvement throughout the research process can provide epistemic justice to patients who have often only had an informant role in traditional health research. This study aims to conduct participatory research on patient experiences to create a solid research agenda with patients and discuss it with relevant stakeholders. We followed a participatory research design in 18 sub-studies, including interviews and group sessions (n = 404 patients), and dialogue sessions (n = 367 professionals and directors in healthcare and social work, municipality civil servants, and funding agencies) on patient experiences with psychiatric care, community care, daycare, public health, and social work. Findings from the eight-year study show that four priorities stood out: attention for misuse of power and abuse; meaningful participation; non-human assistance, and peer support. Moreover, that: (1) patients, based on their experiences, prioritize different topics than experts; (2) most topics are trans-diagnostic and point to the value of a cross-disability approach; and (3) the priorities of patients are all too easily dismissed and require ethics work to prevent epistemic injustice. Long-term investment in a transdisciplinary community of practice offers a solid basis for addressing patient-centered topics and may impact the quality of life of people living with chronic illness, disability, or vulnerability.

Understanding Long Covid: Nosology, social attitudes and stigma

The debate around Long Covid has so far shown resistance to accept parallels between Long Covid and a set of existing conditions which have historically been subject to stigma. This resistance risks endorsing the stigma associated with such existing conditions, and as such, these dynamics of stigma ought to be dismantled in order to facilitate the development of effective clinical resources for all such implicated conditions. As well as affecting proceedings at the structural level, I discuss how the aforementioned problems also risk affecting patients at the personal level by motivating the reconfiguration and restriction of patient illness narratives. The problems I identify therefore risk affecting both collective and individual understanding of Long Covid.

Epistemic Injustice in Incident Investigations: A Qualitative Study

Serious incident investigations-often conducted by means of Root Cause Analysis methodologies-are increasingly seen as platforms to learn from multiple perspectives and experiences: professionals, patients and their families alike. Underlying this principle of inclusiveness is the idea that healthcare staff and service users hold unique and valuable knowledge that can inform learning, as well as the notion that learning is a social process that involves people actively reflecting on shared knowledge. Despite initiatives to facilitate inclusiveness, research shows that embracing and learning from diverse perspectives is difficult. Using the concept of 'epistemic injustice', pointing at practices of someone's knowledge being unjustly disqualified or devalued, we analyze the way incident investigations are organized and executed with the aim to understand why it is difficult to embrace and learn from the multiple perspectives voiced in incident investigations. We draw from 73 semi-structured interviews with healthcare leaders, managers, healthcare professionals, incident investigators and inspectors, document analyses and ethnographic observations. Our analysis identified several structures in the incident investigation process, that can promote or hinder an actor's epistemic contribution in the process of incident investigations. Rather than repeat calls to 'involve more' and 'listen better', we encourage policy makers to be mindful of and address the structures that can cause epistemic injustice. This can improve the outcome of incident investigations and can help to do justice to the lived experiences of the involved actors in the aftermath of a serious incident.

Patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome on the diagnostic odyssey: Rethinking complexity and difficulty as a hero's journey

Patients with hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, an hereditary disorder of the connective tissue, often face a long and difficult diagnostic odyssey in pursuit of a name for their condition. Clinicians may dismiss subjective symptoms of chronic pain, thus prolonging patients' odysseys and worsening their care and satisfaction and creating antagonisms in the patient-provider relationship. A greater understanding of patient experiences is necessary in order to decrease burdens of this relationship and to improve care. To that end, we conducted 22 in-depth, semistructured interviews with individuals who had undergone this diagnostic odyssey. We focused on the impact that the odyssey had on their lives, both inside and outside the clinic. Through narrative analysis, we found a sort of "hero's journey" in the description of their cases, highlighting issues of uncertainty and integration as well as honoring their struggles. Interviewees had encountered difficulties in working with clinicians, in multiplying symptoms, and in negative psychosocial consequences. Attention to patients' lived experience may help to build empathy and understanding for the difficult and complex clinical situation presented by Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. Using the hero's journey as a lens onto this experience allows for a more patient-centered approach to this understanding and has potential value for comprehension of other complex diseases and invisible illnesses.

Epistemic injustice, children and mental illness

The concept of epistemic (specifically testimonial) injustice is the latest philosophical tool with which to try to theorise what goes wrong when mental health service users are not listened to by clinicians, and what goes right when they are. Is the tool adequate to the task? It is argued that, to be applicable at all, the concept needs some adjustment so that being disbelieved as a result of prejudice is one of a family of alternative necessary conditions for its application, rather than a necessary condition all on its own. It is then argued that even once adjusted in this way, the concept does not fit well in the area where the biggest efforts have been made to apply it so far, namely the highly sensitive case of adult patients suffering from delusions. Indeed it does not serve the interests of service users struggling for recognition to try to apply it in this context, because there is so much more to being listened to than simply being believed. However, the concept is found to apply smoothly in many cases where the service users are children, for example, in relation to children's testimony on the efficacy of treatment. It is suggested that further research would demonstrate the usefulness of the concept in adult cases of a similar kind.

Women's Experiences of and Perspectives on Transvaginal Mesh Surgery for Stress Urine Incontinency and Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Qualitative Systematic Review

Background

Trans Vaginal Mesh (TVM) surgeries have been used to treat stress urine incontinency (SUI) and/or pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Systematic reviews of clinical studies of outcomes suggest that the procedures have benefited a majority of women, while noting that a small minority of women have experienced harms. To provide a more complete picture of outcomes, we conducted a systematic review of the qualitative literature to provide a comprehensive analysis of women’s own accounts of their experience.

Method

We conducted a systematic review and thematic synthesis of the evidence from the international qualitative literature on women’s experiences of and perspectives on TVM surgery for SUI and/or POP between 1996 and 2020. We retrieved 6587 papers from PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Sociological Abstracts. After application of inclusion and exclusion criteria and full-text review of eligible articles, five articles were included in our systematic review.

Results

Findings from included articles were organised under three main themes: women’s everyday lives were transformed by TVM surgery; women’s expectations of and approach to their future lives; and women’s critiques of TVM surgery. The transformation of women’s everyday lives included a struggle to obtain recognition and support for their injuries before and after corrective surgery, ongoing limitations on their social, professional and personal lives, and compounding medical and psychological trauma as a result. Women’s approaches to their future lives changed because of this transformation; we identified five main approaches, four were ways of accommodating change, a fifth involved being unable to accommodate life changes. Women’s critiques included that TVM surgeries were overused, consent processes were poor, and surgeons’ definitions of success were deficient. Women expressed concerns about the safety of TVM products and future risks of further complications and discussed multiple system failures in the health care they received.

Conclusion

This review suggests that discounting women’s experiences has caused compound trauma and skewed the clinical evidence base; while harms occurred in a minority of women, we suggest they should be recognised as an ethically significant potential outcome. Approaches to TVM injury should attend to historical epistemic injustice and recognise women’s agency.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40271-021-00547-7.

Epistemic in/justice in patient participation. A discourse analysis of the Dutch ME/CFS Health Council advisory process

In healthcare settings, patient participation is increasingly adopted as a possible remedy to ill people suffering from 'epistemic injustices' - that is to their unfair harming as knowers. In exploring and interpreting patient participation discourses within the 2013-2018 Dutch Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME)/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) Health Council advisory process, this paper assesses the epistemological emancipatory value of this participatory practice. It reveals that in the analysed case, patient representatives predominantly offer biomedical knowledge about ME/CFS. They frame this condition as primarily somatic, and accordingly, perceive appropriate diagnostic criteria, research avenues and treatment options as quantifiable, objectifiable and explicitly non-psychogenic. This paper argues that such a dominant biomedical patient participatory practice is ambiguous in terms of its ability to correct epistemic injustices towards ill people. Biomedicalized patient participation may enhance people's credibility and their ability to make sense of their illness, but it may also undermine their valid position within participatory practices as well as lead to (sustaining) biased and reductive ideas about who ill people are and what kind of knowledge they hold. The final section of this paper offers a brief reflection on how to navigate such biomedicalized participatory practices in order to attain more emancipatory ones.