"Saving us to Death": Ideology and Communicative (Dis)enfranchisement in Misapplications of the 2016 CDC Opioid Prescribing Guidelines.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 COMMUNICATION
Health Communication Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-11 DOI:10.1080/10410236.2024.2363674
Elizabeth A Hintz, Janelle Applequist
{"title":"\"Saving us to Death\": Ideology and Communicative (Dis)enfranchisement in Misapplications of the 2016 CDC Opioid Prescribing Guidelines.","authors":"Elizabeth A Hintz, Janelle Applequist","doi":"10.1080/10410236.2024.2363674","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Guided by the theory of communicative (dis)enfranchisement (TCD), this study interrogates how interactions in which chronic pain patients are force tapered from their prescribed opioids are constrained and afforded by the hegemonic ideologies. To interrogate the harms caused for chronic pain patients by ideological policies enacted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and assess what communicative mechanisms reify and resist such ideologies, this research analyzes 238 posts authored by chronic pain patient Reddit users. Reflexive thematic analysis illuminated a hegemonic ideology of opiophobia, (im)material ramifications of (a) discrimination by doctors, and (b) political and legal interference; mechanisms of reification: (a) positioning suicide as a rational option, (b) advocating for the use of illicit substances, and (c) stopping opioids voluntarily; and mechanisms of resistance: (a) counter-organizing and (b) counter-generating knowledge. We offer theoretical implications for the TCD and practical implications for patients, providers, patient advocacy organizations, and policymakers.</p>","PeriodicalId":12889,"journal":{"name":"Health Communication","volume":" ","pages":"702-712"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Communication","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2024.2363674","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Guided by the theory of communicative (dis)enfranchisement (TCD), this study interrogates how interactions in which chronic pain patients are force tapered from their prescribed opioids are constrained and afforded by the hegemonic ideologies. To interrogate the harms caused for chronic pain patients by ideological policies enacted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and assess what communicative mechanisms reify and resist such ideologies, this research analyzes 238 posts authored by chronic pain patient Reddit users. Reflexive thematic analysis illuminated a hegemonic ideology of opiophobia, (im)material ramifications of (a) discrimination by doctors, and (b) political and legal interference; mechanisms of reification: (a) positioning suicide as a rational option, (b) advocating for the use of illicit substances, and (c) stopping opioids voluntarily; and mechanisms of resistance: (a) counter-organizing and (b) counter-generating knowledge. We offer theoretical implications for the TCD and practical implications for patients, providers, patient advocacy organizations, and policymakers.

"救死扶伤":2016年美国疾病预防控制中心阿片类药物处方指南》误用中的意识形态与沟通(失)权。
本研究以交流(剥夺)权利(TCD)理论为指导,探讨了在慢性疼痛患者被迫停用处方阿片类药物的互动过程中,霸权意识形态是如何制约和支持这种互动的。为了探究美国疾病控制和预防中心颁布的意识形态政策对慢性疼痛患者造成的伤害,并评估哪些交流机制能够重塑和抵制此类意识形态,本研究分析了 238 篇由慢性疼痛患者 Reddit 用户撰写的帖子。反思性主题分析揭示了鸦片恐惧症的霸权意识形态、(a) 医生歧视和 (b) 政治与法律干预的(非)物质后果;重构机制:(a) 将自杀定位为理性选择,(b) 倡导使用非法药物,(c) 自愿停止阿片类药物;以及抵制机制:(a) 反组织和 (b) 反知识生成。我们提出了 TCD 的理论意义以及对患者、医疗服务提供者、患者权益组织和政策制定者的实际意义。
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
8.20
自引率
10.30%
发文量
184
期刊介绍: As an outlet for scholarly intercourse between medical and social sciences, this noteworthy journal seeks to improve practical communication between caregivers and patients and between institutions and the public. Outstanding editorial board members and contributors from both medical and social science arenas collaborate to meet the challenges inherent in this goal. Although most inclusions are data-based, the journal also publishes pedagogical, methodological, theoretical, and applied articles using both quantitative or qualitative methods.
×
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