Towards collaborative tinkering in contraceptive consultations: Negotiating side-effects in contraceptive care.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Health Pub Date : 2025-02-18 DOI:10.1177/13634593251319920
Ellen Algera
{"title":"Towards collaborative tinkering in contraceptive consultations: Negotiating side-effects in contraceptive care.","authors":"Ellen Algera","doi":"10.1177/13634593251319920","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Patients' online information-seeking and sharing has sparked worries about medical misinformation and declining trust in biomedical professionals. At the same time, scholars advocate for including patients as knowers in the clinical encounter. Yet we lack empirical insights into the differing ways care providers and patients substantiate health-related knowledge. This article thus examines (1) how both groups substantiate claims about contraceptive side-effects, (2) the ways their substantiation processes differ and (3) how we can navigate this epistemic tension in contraceptive care. I draw on data from nine interviews with Dutch contraceptive care providers (one nurse practitioner, one gynaecologist and seven general practitioners) and 17 contraceptive users, observations of 11 contraceptive consultations in the Netherlands and analysis of Dutch clinical guidelines. Results reveal that patients substantiate their claims through combining embodied modes of knowing with self-experimentation as well as validation through social media exchanges. Care providers switch between two complementary approaches: demarcating biomedical knowledge from non-scientific claims and clinical tinkering. I show that epistemic tensions between provider and patient may arise because the two groups have differing definitions of what a side-effect is and differing evaluations of information shared online. Based on these findings, I argue that care providers invalidating information shared online may contribute to patients' growing distrust in biomedical authority while collaborative tinkering may provide a common ground for care providers and patients to co-create knowledge.</p>","PeriodicalId":12944,"journal":{"name":"Health","volume":" ","pages":"13634593251319920"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13634593251319920","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","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

Patients' online information-seeking and sharing has sparked worries about medical misinformation and declining trust in biomedical professionals. At the same time, scholars advocate for including patients as knowers in the clinical encounter. Yet we lack empirical insights into the differing ways care providers and patients substantiate health-related knowledge. This article thus examines (1) how both groups substantiate claims about contraceptive side-effects, (2) the ways their substantiation processes differ and (3) how we can navigate this epistemic tension in contraceptive care. I draw on data from nine interviews with Dutch contraceptive care providers (one nurse practitioner, one gynaecologist and seven general practitioners) and 17 contraceptive users, observations of 11 contraceptive consultations in the Netherlands and analysis of Dutch clinical guidelines. Results reveal that patients substantiate their claims through combining embodied modes of knowing with self-experimentation as well as validation through social media exchanges. Care providers switch between two complementary approaches: demarcating biomedical knowledge from non-scientific claims and clinical tinkering. I show that epistemic tensions between provider and patient may arise because the two groups have differing definitions of what a side-effect is and differing evaluations of information shared online. Based on these findings, I argue that care providers invalidating information shared online may contribute to patients' growing distrust in biomedical authority while collaborative tinkering may provide a common ground for care providers and patients to co-create knowledge.

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
Health
Health Multiple-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Health: is published four times per year and attempts in each number to offer a mix of articles that inform or that provoke debate. The readership of the journal is wide and drawn from different disciplines and from workers both inside and outside the health care professions. Widely abstracted, Health: ensures authors an extensive and informed readership for their work. It also seeks to offer authors as short a delay as possible between submission and publication. Most articles are reviewed within 4-6 weeks of submission and those accepted are published within a year of that decision.
期刊最新文献
Narratives of reconstruction: Looking beyond biographical disruption through three Indian breast cancer memoirs. Towards collaborative tinkering in contraceptive consultations: Negotiating side-effects in contraceptive care. In search of a habitable world: The long journey of women who survived breast cancer. More than meets the eye: Understanding the importance of the materialities of care at the vaccination encounter in Portugal. A systematic-narrative hybrid review of evidence: Exploring how corporate social responsibility initiatives impact population health.
×
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