工作知识、不确定性和本体论政治:英国长期阴道炎诊所的人种学研究。

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Sociology of health & illness Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-19 DOI:10.1111/1467-9566.13819
Trisha Greenhalgh, Julie Darbyshire, Emma Ladds, Jackie Van Dael, Clare Rayner
{"title":"工作知识、不确定性和本体论政治:英国长期阴道炎诊所的人种学研究。","authors":"Trisha Greenhalgh, Julie Darbyshire, Emma Ladds, Jackie Van Dael, Clare Rayner","doi":"10.1111/1467-9566.13819","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Long covid (persistent COVID-19) is a new disease with contested aetiology and variable prognosis. We report a 2-year ethnography of UK long covid clinics. Using a preformative lens, we show that multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) built working knowledge based on shared practices, mutual trust, distributed cognition (e.g. emails, record entries), relational knowledge of what was at stake for the patient, and harnessing uncertainty to open new discursive spaces. Most long covid MDTs performed the working knowledge of 'rehabilitation', a linked set of practices oriented to ensuring that the patient understood and strove to 'correct' maladaptive physiological responses (e.g. through breathing exercises) and pursued recovery goals, supported by physiotherapists, psychologists and generalist clinicians. Some MDTs with a higher proportion of doctors (e.g. cardiologists, neurologists, immunologists) enacted the working knowledge of 'microscopic damage', seeking to elucidate and rectify long covid's underlying molecular and cellular pathology. They justified non-standard investigations and medication in selected patients by co-constructing an evidentiary narrative based on biological mechanisms. Working knowledge was ontologically concordant within MDTs but sometimes discordant between MDTs. Overt ontological conflict occurred mostly when patients attending 'rehabilitation' clinics invoked the working knowledge of microscopic damage that had been generated and circulated in online support communities.</p>","PeriodicalId":21685,"journal":{"name":"Sociology of health & illness","volume":" ","pages":"1881-1900"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Working knowledge, uncertainty and ontological politics: An ethnography of UK long covid clinics.\",\"authors\":\"Trisha Greenhalgh, Julie Darbyshire, Emma Ladds, Jackie Van Dael, Clare Rayner\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1467-9566.13819\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Long covid (persistent COVID-19) is a new disease with contested aetiology and variable prognosis. We report a 2-year ethnography of UK long covid clinics. Using a preformative lens, we show that multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) built working knowledge based on shared practices, mutual trust, distributed cognition (e.g. emails, record entries), relational knowledge of what was at stake for the patient, and harnessing uncertainty to open new discursive spaces. Most long covid MDTs performed the working knowledge of 'rehabilitation', a linked set of practices oriented to ensuring that the patient understood and strove to 'correct' maladaptive physiological responses (e.g. through breathing exercises) and pursued recovery goals, supported by physiotherapists, psychologists and generalist clinicians. Some MDTs with a higher proportion of doctors (e.g. cardiologists, neurologists, immunologists) enacted the working knowledge of 'microscopic damage', seeking to elucidate and rectify long covid's underlying molecular and cellular pathology. They justified non-standard investigations and medication in selected patients by co-constructing an evidentiary narrative based on biological mechanisms. Working knowledge was ontologically concordant within MDTs but sometimes discordant between MDTs. Overt ontological conflict occurred mostly when patients attending 'rehabilitation' clinics invoked the working knowledge of microscopic damage that had been generated and circulated in online support communities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21685,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sociology of health & illness\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1881-1900\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"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/10.1111/1467-9566.13819\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/19 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociology of health & illness","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.13819","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

长covid(持续性COVID-19)是一种新疾病,其病因存在争议,预后不一。我们报告了一项为期两年的英国长效科维诊所人种学研究。我们使用前形成性视角,展示了多学科团队(MDTs)在共享实践、相互信任、分布式认知(如电子邮件、记录条目)、对患者利害关系的关系知识以及利用不确定性打开新的话语空间的基础上建立的工作知识。大多数长期慢性病多学科治疗小组在物理治疗师、心理学家和全科临床医生的支持下,运用 "康复 "这一工作知识,开展一系列相关实践,以确保患者理解并努力 "纠正 "不良的生理反应(如通过呼吸练习),并追求康复目标。一些由较多医生(如心脏病专家、神经科专家、免疫专家)组成的多学科专家小组则运用 "微观损伤 "的工作知识,力求阐明和纠正长期颅内出血的潜在分子和细胞病理学。他们通过共同构建基于生物机制的证据叙事,为特定患者的非标准检查和药物治疗提供依据。多学科专家小组内部的工作知识在本体论上是一致的,但多学科专家小组之间的工作知识有时是不一致的。公开的本体论冲突主要发生在 "康复 "诊所的患者援引在线支持社区中产生和传播的微观损伤工作知识时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Working knowledge, uncertainty and ontological politics: An ethnography of UK long covid clinics.

Long covid (persistent COVID-19) is a new disease with contested aetiology and variable prognosis. We report a 2-year ethnography of UK long covid clinics. Using a preformative lens, we show that multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) built working knowledge based on shared practices, mutual trust, distributed cognition (e.g. emails, record entries), relational knowledge of what was at stake for the patient, and harnessing uncertainty to open new discursive spaces. Most long covid MDTs performed the working knowledge of 'rehabilitation', a linked set of practices oriented to ensuring that the patient understood and strove to 'correct' maladaptive physiological responses (e.g. through breathing exercises) and pursued recovery goals, supported by physiotherapists, psychologists and generalist clinicians. Some MDTs with a higher proportion of doctors (e.g. cardiologists, neurologists, immunologists) enacted the working knowledge of 'microscopic damage', seeking to elucidate and rectify long covid's underlying molecular and cellular pathology. They justified non-standard investigations and medication in selected patients by co-constructing an evidentiary narrative based on biological mechanisms. Working knowledge was ontologically concordant within MDTs but sometimes discordant between MDTs. Overt ontological conflict occurred mostly when patients attending 'rehabilitation' clinics invoked the working knowledge of microscopic damage that had been generated and circulated in online support communities.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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.
期刊最新文献
The Iatrogenic Consequences of Medicalising Grief: Resetting the Research Agenda. A Political-Economic Model of Community and Societal Health Resources: A 92-Country Global Analysis. From Cells to Organoids: Sociological Considerations for the Bioengineering of Human Models. The Golden Ticket? Widening Access in UK Medicine and the Making of an Emotional Proletariat. Between epistemic injustice and therapeutic jurisprudence: Coronial processes involving families of autistic people, people with learning disabilities and/or mental ill 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