Long COVID patients’ reconstruction of medical gaslighting discourse in online epistemic communities

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Patient Education and Counseling Pub Date : 2025-01-14 DOI:10.1016/j.pec.2025.108665
Anna Franca Plastina
{"title":"Long COVID patients’ reconstruction of medical gaslighting discourse in online epistemic communities","authors":"Anna Franca Plastina","doi":"10.1016/j.pec.2025.108665","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To analyse long COVID patients’ reconstruction of medical gaslighting (MG) discourse in online epistemic communities in order to identify the MG types experienced and unfold root causes.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>The mixed-methods of corpus‑based critical discourse analysis was applied to an ad hoc corpus of 18 threads (n = 1176 posts) from two sub-communities on the social media site Reddit. Comparative concordance analyses were performed on the two sub-corpora to semantically code concordance lines as MG types. Critical discourse analysis was conducted to uncover power/ideological drivers of MG discourse.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Keyness log‑likelihood statistical measures displayed higher values for the pronouns <em>I</em>, <em>me</em>, <em>you</em>, <em>it, they</em> and the noun <em>doctor(s)</em>. KWIC (Key Word in Context) output for these items exhibited seven main MG types: <em>scapegoating</em>, <em>downplay</em>, <em>treatment refusal, psychosomatic disorder</em>, <em>disbelief</em>, <em>denial</em> and <em>dismissal</em>. Concordance lines revealed three major sites of contention – epistemic knowledge, epistemic authority, long COVID indeterminacy – where MG tactics operate through epistemic injustice, ignorance, discrimination and lack of epistemic humility.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>MG discourse is triggered by deep-seated ideologies rather than by mere doctor-patient interaction as a face-saving strategy which faults patients as epistemic agents.</div></div><div><h3>Practical Implications</h3><div>Patients’ social media mobilisation helps unmask MG tactics, raising providers’ awareness of the need for perspective-taking to build collaborative doctor-patient relationships.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49714,"journal":{"name":"Patient Education and Counseling","volume":"134 ","pages":"Article 108665"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient Education and Counseling","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0738399125000321","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

Objective

To analyse long COVID patients’ reconstruction of medical gaslighting (MG) discourse in online epistemic communities in order to identify the MG types experienced and unfold root causes.

Method

The mixed-methods of corpus‑based critical discourse analysis was applied to an ad hoc corpus of 18 threads (n = 1176 posts) from two sub-communities on the social media site Reddit. Comparative concordance analyses were performed on the two sub-corpora to semantically code concordance lines as MG types. Critical discourse analysis was conducted to uncover power/ideological drivers of MG discourse.

Results

Keyness log‑likelihood statistical measures displayed higher values for the pronouns I, me, you, it, they and the noun doctor(s). KWIC (Key Word in Context) output for these items exhibited seven main MG types: scapegoating, downplay, treatment refusal, psychosomatic disorder, disbelief, denial and dismissal. Concordance lines revealed three major sites of contention – epistemic knowledge, epistemic authority, long COVID indeterminacy – where MG tactics operate through epistemic injustice, ignorance, discrimination and lack of epistemic humility.

Conclusion

MG discourse is triggered by deep-seated ideologies rather than by mere doctor-patient interaction as a face-saving strategy which faults patients as epistemic agents.

Practical Implications

Patients’ social media mobilisation helps unmask MG tactics, raising providers’ awareness of the need for perspective-taking to build collaborative doctor-patient relationships.
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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Patient Education and Counseling
Patient Education and Counseling 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
11.40%
发文量
384
审稿时长
46 days
期刊介绍: Patient Education and Counseling is an interdisciplinary, international journal for patient education and health promotion researchers, managers and clinicians. The journal seeks to explore and elucidate the educational, counseling and communication models in health care. Its aim is to provide a forum for fundamental as well as applied research, and to promote the study of organizational issues involved with the delivery of patient education, counseling, health promotion services and training models in improving communication between providers and patients.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Web-based educational tools and decision aids for patients with advanced cancer: A systematic review Dismissive medicine and gaslighting of patients by physicians – A bioethics lens Parental satisfaction with diagnosis disclosure: A study on parents of children or adults with genetic syndromes “What can I trust”: Exploring impact of dual-channel service review quality on patients’ online healthcare choices
×
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