Online Health Communities in Controversy over ME/CFS and Long Covid

Sally Jackson
{"title":"Online Health Communities in Controversy over ME/CFS and Long Covid","authors":"Sally Jackson","doi":"10.47368/ejhc.2023.203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The condition known variously as myalgic encephalomyelitis, chronic fatigue syndrome, or ME/CFS has been steeped in controversy for 40 years or more. Long Covid, first noticed and named in 2020, has become entangled with the ME/CFS controversy because of striking similarities in the experiences of patients suffering from the two illnesses. Online health communities (OHCs) have played central roles in both controversies, but these are not the kinds of roles that have been so well-documented in prior literature. While prior research has established many ways in which participation in an OHC may benefit or otherwise affect community members themselves, this essay focuses on how OHCs contribute to positional shifts in health controversies that involve other communities as well. Using a framework for understanding health controversies as argumentative polylogues, I show that OHCs arguing with other players have made contributions that are both effective in gaining ground for the OHCs' own goals and in elevating the overall quality of the debate. Further, in some cases these contributions have been so innovative as to suggest surprising future trajectories for OHCs.","PeriodicalId":358828,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Health Communication","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Health Communication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47368/ejhc.2023.203","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The condition known variously as myalgic encephalomyelitis, chronic fatigue syndrome, or ME/CFS has been steeped in controversy for 40 years or more. Long Covid, first noticed and named in 2020, has become entangled with the ME/CFS controversy because of striking similarities in the experiences of patients suffering from the two illnesses. Online health communities (OHCs) have played central roles in both controversies, but these are not the kinds of roles that have been so well-documented in prior literature. While prior research has established many ways in which participation in an OHC may benefit or otherwise affect community members themselves, this essay focuses on how OHCs contribute to positional shifts in health controversies that involve other communities as well. Using a framework for understanding health controversies as argumentative polylogues, I show that OHCs arguing with other players have made contributions that are both effective in gaining ground for the OHCs' own goals and in elevating the overall quality of the debate. Further, in some cases these contributions have been so innovative as to suggest surprising future trajectories for OHCs.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在线健康社区对ME/CFS和长Covid的争议
这种疾病被称为肌痛性脑脊髓炎、慢性疲劳综合征或ME/CFS,已经陷入了40多年的争议中。长冠状病毒于2020年首次被发现并命名,它与ME/CFS争议纠缠在一起,因为患有这两种疾病的患者的经历惊人地相似。在线健康社区(ohc)在这两个争议中都扮演了核心角色,但这些角色在之前的文献中并没有得到很好的记载。虽然先前的研究已经确定了参与OHC可能使社区成员受益或以其他方式影响社区成员本身的许多方式,但本文侧重于OHC如何促进涉及其他社区的健康争议中的位置转变。我使用一个将健康争议理解为争论性多语的框架,表明OHCs与其他参与者的争论做出了贡献,既有效地为OHCs自己的目标取得了进展,又提高了辩论的整体质量。此外,在某些情况下,这些贡献是如此具有创新性,以至于对OHCs的未来轨迹提出了令人惊讶的建议。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Twitter, Politics, and the Pandemic When Online and Offline Environments Meet Examining the Impact of Six Pro-Vaccination Messages on MMR Vaccine Hesitancy Among Mothers in Ukraine Would You Mind Sharing Your Opinion About the Covid-19 Vaccination? Issue Fatigue Over the Course of the Covid-19 Pandemic
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1