“In such a dark period, the only light”: Patients’ motivations and strategies to seek care from an online health community during the COVID-19 pandemic

IF 1.8 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Alberto Ardissone
{"title":"“In such a dark period, the only light”: Patients’ motivations and strategies to seek care from an online health community during the COVID-19 pandemic","authors":"Alberto Ardissone","doi":"10.1016/j.ssmqr.2024.100425","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This paper presents the findings of a qualitative study conducted in Italy about a peculiar online health community named #TERAPIADOMICILIARECOVID19 (#TDC19), which, since April 2020, has assisted people with COVID-19 with early-at-home therapy delivered by volunteer doctors, free of charge for patients. The aim of the paper was to analyse patients' motivations and strategies when negotiating risk in the context of this choice. Findings showed that patients' choices were the outcome of a process that forms an entangled ecology of care involving several dimensions, crossing micro, meso and macro levels: a) the process of knowledge-building by assessing mass-media, ascertaining the best protocol and recalling previous experiences with similar diseases; b) the experience of feeling abandoned by general practitioners (GPs) and healthcare institutions; c) the positive encounter with #TDC19's posts of gratitude written by people who were cured by #TDC19 doctors. In the end, patients' choice was not a leap of faith; they negotiated and balanced out the perceived risks associated with COVID-19 and with the possible available choices (GPs, do-it-yourself, #TDC19-doctors) based on a strategy that chiefly encompassed a blend of rational and in-between logics.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74862,"journal":{"name":"SSM. Qualitative research in health","volume":"5 ","pages":"Article 100425"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667321524000349/pdfft?md5=f92e60008f739be780536d56114bc7b4&pid=1-s2.0-S2667321524000349-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SSM. Qualitative research in health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667321524000349","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper presents the findings of a qualitative study conducted in Italy about a peculiar online health community named #TERAPIADOMICILIARECOVID19 (#TDC19), which, since April 2020, has assisted people with COVID-19 with early-at-home therapy delivered by volunteer doctors, free of charge for patients. The aim of the paper was to analyse patients' motivations and strategies when negotiating risk in the context of this choice. Findings showed that patients' choices were the outcome of a process that forms an entangled ecology of care involving several dimensions, crossing micro, meso and macro levels: a) the process of knowledge-building by assessing mass-media, ascertaining the best protocol and recalling previous experiences with similar diseases; b) the experience of feeling abandoned by general practitioners (GPs) and healthcare institutions; c) the positive encounter with #TDC19's posts of gratitude written by people who were cured by #TDC19 doctors. In the end, patients' choice was not a leap of faith; they negotiated and balanced out the perceived risks associated with COVID-19 and with the possible available choices (GPs, do-it-yourself, #TDC19-doctors) based on a strategy that chiefly encompassed a blend of rational and in-between logics.

"在如此黑暗的时期,唯一的光明":在 COVID-19 大流行期间,患者从在线健康社区寻求护理的动机和策略
自 2020 年 4 月起,该社区开始帮助 COVID-19 患者接受由志愿医生提供的早期上门治疗,患者可免费使用。本文旨在分析患者在这一选择背景下协商风险时的动机和策略。研究结果表明,患者的选择是一个过程的结果,这个过程形成了一个纠缠不清的护理生态,涉及多个层面,跨越了微观、中观和宏观层面:a)通过评估大众媒体、确定最佳方案和回顾以往治疗类似疾病的经验来建立知识的过程;b)感觉被全科医生(GP)和医疗机构抛弃的经历;c)与#TDC19医生治愈的患者所写的感恩帖子的积极接触。最终,患者的选择并不是一种信仰的飞跃;他们根据主要包含理性和中间逻辑的策略,对与 COVID-19 相关的可感知风险和可能的可用选择(全科医生、自己动手、#TDC19 医生)进行了协商和平衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
163 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信