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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Social science & medicine (1982) 2022-01, Vol.292, p.114619-114619, Article 114619 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
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 & 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 & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Social science & 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 & 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 |