Contested Illness and Alternative Expertise Networks in Global Health: Post-COVID Syndrome in Brazil.

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Renan Gonçalves Leonel da Silva, Amanda Curi, Larry Au, Cristian Capotescu, Gil Eyal
{"title":"Contested Illness and Alternative Expertise Networks in Global Health: Post-COVID Syndrome in Brazil.","authors":"Renan Gonçalves Leonel da Silva, Amanda Curi, Larry Au, Cristian Capotescu, Gil Eyal","doi":"10.1111/1467-9566.70079","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Contested illnesses such as long COVID or post-COVID syndrome create heightened uncertainty for patients as they navigate diagnosis and treatment. To lessen this uncertainty, patients in the United States and Europe have relied on patient activism and patient-led research to seek recognition from medical, scientific and political institutions. However, patients in other countries rely on different sets of strategies. Drawing on a survey (n = 144) and interviews (n = 32) of patients with post-COVID syndrome recruited via social media in Brazil, we found common experiences of psychologisation and dismissal of patient experiences. To combat this dismissal, some patients turned to each other online. However, patient groups showed a preference for advice from credentialled experts rather than asserting the embodied expertise of patients. Similarly, in the construction of alternative expertise networks, patients continued to rely on credentialled experts in the private healthcare system and from foreign and nonstate experts. We discuss how these alternative expertise networks may diminish the possibility of collective mobilisation and how those who are more socioeconomically disadvantaged and under-represented in our study will likely endure additional challenges.</p>","PeriodicalId":21685,"journal":{"name":"Sociology of health & illness","volume":"47 7","pages":"e70079"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociology of health & illness","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.70079","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Contested illnesses such as long COVID or post-COVID syndrome create heightened uncertainty for patients as they navigate diagnosis and treatment. To lessen this uncertainty, patients in the United States and Europe have relied on patient activism and patient-led research to seek recognition from medical, scientific and political institutions. However, patients in other countries rely on different sets of strategies. Drawing on a survey (n = 144) and interviews (n = 32) of patients with post-COVID syndrome recruited via social media in Brazil, we found common experiences of psychologisation and dismissal of patient experiences. To combat this dismissal, some patients turned to each other online. However, patient groups showed a preference for advice from credentialled experts rather than asserting the embodied expertise of patients. Similarly, in the construction of alternative expertise networks, patients continued to rely on credentialled experts in the private healthcare system and from foreign and nonstate experts. We discuss how these alternative expertise networks may diminish the possibility of collective mobilisation and how those who are more socioeconomically disadvantaged and under-represented in our study will likely endure additional challenges.

全球卫生中的争议性疾病和替代专业知识网络:巴西的后covid综合征。
长冠状病毒或后冠状病毒综合征等有争议的疾病在患者进行诊断和治疗时给他们带来了更大的不确定性。为了减少这种不确定性,美国和欧洲的患者依靠患者行动主义和患者主导的研究来寻求医学、科学和政治机构的认可。然而,其他国家的患者依赖于不同的策略。通过对巴西社交媒体招募的后covid综合征患者的调查(n = 144)和访谈(n = 32),我们发现了心理化和对患者经历的忽视的共同经历。为了对抗这种忽视,一些患者在网上相互求助。然而,患者群体表现出对有资格的专家的建议的偏好,而不是断言患者的具体专业知识。同样,在构建替代专家网络方面,患者继续依赖私人医疗保健系统的有资格专家以及外国和非国家专家。我们讨论了这些替代专业知识网络如何减少集体动员的可能性,以及那些在我们的研究中处于社会经济劣势和代表性不足的人如何可能承受额外的挑战。
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
6.10
自引率
6.90%
发文量
156
期刊介绍: Sociology of Health & Illness is an international journal which publishes sociological articles on all aspects of health, illness, medicine and health care. We welcome empirical and theoretical contributions in this field.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信