The contested meaning of “long COVID” – Patients, doctors, and the politics of subjective evidence

In our article, we reconstruct how the patient-made term “long COVID” was able to become a widely accepted concept in public discourses. While the condition was initially invisible to the public eye, we show how the mobilization of subjective evidence online, i.e., the dissemination of reports on th...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Social science & medicine (1982) 2022-01, Vol.292, p.114619-114619, Article 114619
Hauptverfasser: Roth, Phillip H., Gadebusch-Bondio, Mariacarla
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 114619
container_issue
container_start_page 114619
container_title Social science & medicine (1982)
container_volume 292
creator Roth, Phillip H.
Gadebusch-Bondio, Mariacarla
description In our article, we reconstruct how the patient-made term “long COVID” was able to become a widely accepted concept in public discourses. While the condition was initially invisible to the public eye, we show how the mobilization of subjective evidence online, i.e., the dissemination of reports on the different experiences of lasting symptoms, was able to transform the condition into a crucial feature of the coronavirus pandemic. We explore how stakeholders used the term “long COVID” in online media and in other channels to create their illness and group identity, but also to demarcate the personal experience and experiential knowledge of long COVID from that of other sources. Our exploratory study addresses two questions. Firstly, how the mobilization of subjective evidence leads to the recognition of long COVID and the development of treatment interventions in medicine; and secondly, what distinguishes these developments from other examples of subjective evidence mobilization. We argue that the long COVID movement was able to fill crucial knowledge gaps in the pandemic discourses, making long COVID a legitimate concern of official measures to counter the pandemic. By first showing how illness experiences were gathered that defied official classifications of COVID-19, we show how patients made the “long COVID” term. Then we compare the clinical and social identity of long COVID to that of chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), before we examine the social and epistemic processes at work in the digital and medial discourses that have transformed how the pandemic is perceived through the lens of long COVID. Building on this, we finally demonstrate how the alignment of medical professionals as patients with the movement has challenged the normative role of clinical evidence, leading to new forms of medical action to tackle the pandemic. •Experiential knowledge can fill crucial gaps in the pandemic discourse.•Long COVID online self-advocacy provides a rich source of subjective evidence.•Patient subjective evidence is challenging the normative role of clinical evidence.•Activism made long COVID diagnosis as a requirement for recognition obsolete.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114619
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8629766</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0277953621009515</els_id><sourcerecordid>2610410654</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c557t-f2623535aa2d69859061af2477a16662a147d414f0b7d3bd4f0c34e7fc7f8c743</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFUctuFDEQtBCILIFfgJG45MAsbttjz1yQouUVKVI4BK6W1_ZkPZq1F9uzErf8A1f4uXwJHm1YARdOLrmrq7urEHoBeAkY-OthmYJO2m2tWRJMYAnAOHQP0AJaQeuGMvEQLTARou4ayk_Qk5QGjDHglj5GJ5R1mLeELtDmemMrHXy2KVtTba3yzt9Uoa_ubn-MocDV1ZeLt3e3P8vH9-qTys76nF5VJugcYgHKmyoXkV0YXXY6zb1pWg9WZ7e3ld07Y722T9GjXo3JPrt_T9Hn9--uVx_ry6sPF6vzy1o3jch1TzihDW2UIoZ3bVP2BNUTJoQCzjlRwIRhwHq8FoauTQGaMit6LfpWC0ZP0ZuD7m5aF3d02TaqUe6i26r4TQbl5N8V7zbyJuxly0knOC8CZ_cCMXydii1y65K246i8DVOShANmgHkzz3r5D3UIU_TlvMKimAJwmAXFgaVjSCna_rgMYDmnKQd5TFPOacpDmqXz-Z-3HPt-x1cI5weCLY7unY2yqMxuGxeL_9IE998hvwDYLbdz</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2630311616</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The contested meaning of “long COVID” – Patients, doctors, and the politics of subjective evidence</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><creator>Roth, Phillip H. ; Gadebusch-Bondio, Mariacarla</creator><creatorcontrib>Roth, Phillip H. ; Gadebusch-Bondio, Mariacarla</creatorcontrib><description>In our article, we reconstruct how the patient-made term “long COVID” was able to become a widely accepted concept in public discourses. While the condition was initially invisible to the public eye, we show how the mobilization of subjective evidence online, i.e., the dissemination of reports on the different experiences of lasting symptoms, was able to transform the condition into a crucial feature of the coronavirus pandemic. We explore how stakeholders used the term “long COVID” in online media and in other channels to create their illness and group identity, but also to demarcate the personal experience and experiential knowledge of long COVID from that of other sources. Our exploratory study addresses two questions. Firstly, how the mobilization of subjective evidence leads to the recognition of long COVID and the development of treatment interventions in medicine; and secondly, what distinguishes these developments from other examples of subjective evidence mobilization. We argue that the long COVID movement was able to fill crucial knowledge gaps in the pandemic discourses, making long COVID a legitimate concern of official measures to counter the pandemic. By first showing how illness experiences were gathered that defied official classifications of COVID-19, we show how patients made the “long COVID” term. Then we compare the clinical and social identity of long COVID to that of chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), before we examine the social and epistemic processes at work in the digital and medial discourses that have transformed how the pandemic is perceived through the lens of long COVID. Building on this, we finally demonstrate how the alignment of medical professionals as patients with the movement has challenged the normative role of clinical evidence, leading to new forms of medical action to tackle the pandemic. •Experiential knowledge can fill crucial gaps in the pandemic discourse.•Long COVID online self-advocacy provides a rich source of subjective evidence.•Patient subjective evidence is challenging the normative role of clinical evidence.•Activism made long COVID diagnosis as a requirement for recognition obsolete.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0277-9536</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1873-5347</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-5347</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114619</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34906823</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Chronic fatigue syndrome ; Classification ; Co-production ; Coronaviruses ; COVID-19 ; COVID-19 - complications ; Discourses ; Dissemination ; Fatigue ; Group identity ; Humans ; Illness experience ; Illnesses ; Long COVID ; Medical personnel ; Medicine ; Mobilization ; Pandemics ; Patient knowledge ; Patients ; Personal experiences ; Politics ; Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome ; SARS-CoV-2 ; Social identity ; Social media ; Social movements ; Subjective evidence</subject><ispartof>Social science &amp; medicine (1982), 2022-01, Vol.292, p.114619-114619, Article 114619</ispartof><rights>2021 The Authors</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Pergamon Press Inc. Jan 2022</rights><rights>2021 The Authors 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c557t-f2623535aa2d69859061af2477a16662a147d414f0b7d3bd4f0c34e7fc7f8c743</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c557t-f2623535aa2d69859061af2477a16662a147d414f0b7d3bd4f0c34e7fc7f8c743</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5213-3348 ; 0000-0002-5888-3059</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953621009515$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,3536,27903,27904,33753,65309</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34906823$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Roth, Phillip H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gadebusch-Bondio, Mariacarla</creatorcontrib><title>The contested meaning of “long COVID” – Patients, doctors, and the politics of subjective evidence</title><title>Social science &amp; medicine (1982)</title><addtitle>Soc Sci Med</addtitle><description>In our article, we reconstruct how the patient-made term “long COVID” was able to become a widely accepted concept in public discourses. While the condition was initially invisible to the public eye, we show how the mobilization of subjective evidence online, i.e., the dissemination of reports on the different experiences of lasting symptoms, was able to transform the condition into a crucial feature of the coronavirus pandemic. We explore how stakeholders used the term “long COVID” in online media and in other channels to create their illness and group identity, but also to demarcate the personal experience and experiential knowledge of long COVID from that of other sources. Our exploratory study addresses two questions. Firstly, how the mobilization of subjective evidence leads to the recognition of long COVID and the development of treatment interventions in medicine; and secondly, what distinguishes these developments from other examples of subjective evidence mobilization. We argue that the long COVID movement was able to fill crucial knowledge gaps in the pandemic discourses, making long COVID a legitimate concern of official measures to counter the pandemic. By first showing how illness experiences were gathered that defied official classifications of COVID-19, we show how patients made the “long COVID” term. Then we compare the clinical and social identity of long COVID to that of chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), before we examine the social and epistemic processes at work in the digital and medial discourses that have transformed how the pandemic is perceived through the lens of long COVID. Building on this, we finally demonstrate how the alignment of medical professionals as patients with the movement has challenged the normative role of clinical evidence, leading to new forms of medical action to tackle the pandemic. •Experiential knowledge can fill crucial gaps in the pandemic discourse.•Long COVID online self-advocacy provides a rich source of subjective evidence.•Patient subjective evidence is challenging the normative role of clinical evidence.•Activism made long COVID diagnosis as a requirement for recognition obsolete.</description><subject>Chronic fatigue syndrome</subject><subject>Classification</subject><subject>Co-production</subject><subject>Coronaviruses</subject><subject>COVID-19</subject><subject>COVID-19 - complications</subject><subject>Discourses</subject><subject>Dissemination</subject><subject>Fatigue</subject><subject>Group identity</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Illness experience</subject><subject>Illnesses</subject><subject>Long COVID</subject><subject>Medical personnel</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Mobilization</subject><subject>Pandemics</subject><subject>Patient knowledge</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Personal experiences</subject><subject>Politics</subject><subject>Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome</subject><subject>SARS-CoV-2</subject><subject>Social identity</subject><subject>Social media</subject><subject>Social movements</subject><subject>Subjective evidence</subject><issn>0277-9536</issn><issn>1873-5347</issn><issn>1873-5347</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNqFUctuFDEQtBCILIFfgJG45MAsbttjz1yQouUVKVI4BK6W1_ZkPZq1F9uzErf8A1f4uXwJHm1YARdOLrmrq7urEHoBeAkY-OthmYJO2m2tWRJMYAnAOHQP0AJaQeuGMvEQLTARou4ayk_Qk5QGjDHglj5GJ5R1mLeELtDmemMrHXy2KVtTba3yzt9Uoa_ubn-MocDV1ZeLt3e3P8vH9-qTys76nF5VJugcYgHKmyoXkV0YXXY6zb1pWg9WZ7e3ld07Y722T9GjXo3JPrt_T9Hn9--uVx_ry6sPF6vzy1o3jch1TzihDW2UIoZ3bVP2BNUTJoQCzjlRwIRhwHq8FoauTQGaMit6LfpWC0ZP0ZuD7m5aF3d02TaqUe6i26r4TQbl5N8V7zbyJuxly0knOC8CZ_cCMXydii1y65K246i8DVOShANmgHkzz3r5D3UIU_TlvMKimAJwmAXFgaVjSCna_rgMYDmnKQd5TFPOacpDmqXz-Z-3HPt-x1cI5weCLY7unY2yqMxuGxeL_9IE998hvwDYLbdz</recordid><startdate>20220101</startdate><enddate>20220101</enddate><creator>Roth, Phillip H.</creator><creator>Gadebusch-Bondio, Mariacarla</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Pergamon Press Inc</general><general>The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7U3</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>WZK</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5213-3348</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5888-3059</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220101</creationdate><title>The contested meaning of “long COVID” – Patients, doctors, and the politics of subjective evidence</title><author>Roth, Phillip H. ; Gadebusch-Bondio, Mariacarla</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c557t-f2623535aa2d69859061af2477a16662a147d414f0b7d3bd4f0c34e7fc7f8c743</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Chronic fatigue syndrome</topic><topic>Classification</topic><topic>Co-production</topic><topic>Coronaviruses</topic><topic>COVID-19</topic><topic>COVID-19 - complications</topic><topic>Discourses</topic><topic>Dissemination</topic><topic>Fatigue</topic><topic>Group identity</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Illness experience</topic><topic>Illnesses</topic><topic>Long COVID</topic><topic>Medical personnel</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Mobilization</topic><topic>Pandemics</topic><topic>Patient knowledge</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Personal experiences</topic><topic>Politics</topic><topic>Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome</topic><topic>SARS-CoV-2</topic><topic>Social identity</topic><topic>Social media</topic><topic>Social movements</topic><topic>Subjective evidence</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Roth, Phillip H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gadebusch-Bondio, Mariacarla</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Social Services Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Social science &amp; medicine (1982)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Roth, Phillip H.</au><au>Gadebusch-Bondio, Mariacarla</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The contested meaning of “long COVID” – Patients, doctors, and the politics of subjective evidence</atitle><jtitle>Social science &amp; medicine (1982)</jtitle><addtitle>Soc Sci Med</addtitle><date>2022-01-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>292</volume><spage>114619</spage><epage>114619</epage><pages>114619-114619</pages><artnum>114619</artnum><issn>0277-9536</issn><issn>1873-5347</issn><eissn>1873-5347</eissn><abstract>In our article, we reconstruct how the patient-made term “long COVID” was able to become a widely accepted concept in public discourses. While the condition was initially invisible to the public eye, we show how the mobilization of subjective evidence online, i.e., the dissemination of reports on the different experiences of lasting symptoms, was able to transform the condition into a crucial feature of the coronavirus pandemic. We explore how stakeholders used the term “long COVID” in online media and in other channels to create their illness and group identity, but also to demarcate the personal experience and experiential knowledge of long COVID from that of other sources. Our exploratory study addresses two questions. Firstly, how the mobilization of subjective evidence leads to the recognition of long COVID and the development of treatment interventions in medicine; and secondly, what distinguishes these developments from other examples of subjective evidence mobilization. We argue that the long COVID movement was able to fill crucial knowledge gaps in the pandemic discourses, making long COVID a legitimate concern of official measures to counter the pandemic. By first showing how illness experiences were gathered that defied official classifications of COVID-19, we show how patients made the “long COVID” term. Then we compare the clinical and social identity of long COVID to that of chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), before we examine the social and epistemic processes at work in the digital and medial discourses that have transformed how the pandemic is perceived through the lens of long COVID. Building on this, we finally demonstrate how the alignment of medical professionals as patients with the movement has challenged the normative role of clinical evidence, leading to new forms of medical action to tackle the pandemic. •Experiential knowledge can fill crucial gaps in the pandemic discourse.•Long COVID online self-advocacy provides a rich source of subjective evidence.•Patient subjective evidence is challenging the normative role of clinical evidence.•Activism made long COVID diagnosis as a requirement for recognition obsolete.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>34906823</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114619</doi><tpages>1</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5213-3348</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5888-3059</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0277-9536
ispartof Social science & medicine (1982), 2022-01, Vol.292, p.114619-114619, Article 114619
issn 0277-9536
1873-5347
1873-5347
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8629766
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals; Sociological Abstracts
subjects Chronic fatigue syndrome
Classification
Co-production
Coronaviruses
COVID-19
COVID-19 - complications
Discourses
Dissemination
Fatigue
Group identity
Humans
Illness experience
Illnesses
Long COVID
Medical personnel
Medicine
Mobilization
Pandemics
Patient knowledge
Patients
Personal experiences
Politics
Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome
SARS-CoV-2
Social identity
Social media
Social movements
Subjective evidence
title The contested meaning of “long COVID” – Patients, doctors, and the politics of subjective evidence
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T08%3A11%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20contested%20meaning%20of%20%E2%80%9Clong%20COVID%E2%80%9D%20%E2%80%93%20Patients,%20doctors,%20and%20the%20politics%20of%20subjective%20evidence&rft.jtitle=Social%20science%20&%20medicine%20(1982)&rft.au=Roth,%20Phillip%20H.&rft.date=2022-01-01&rft.volume=292&rft.spage=114619&rft.epage=114619&rft.pages=114619-114619&rft.artnum=114619&rft.issn=0277-9536&rft.eissn=1873-5347&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114619&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2610410654%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2630311616&rft_id=info:pmid/34906823&rft_els_id=S0277953621009515&rfr_iscdi=true