Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34137042›Full record

ArticleSociology of health & illness2021

Epistemic in/justice in patient participation. A discourse analysis of the Dutch ME/CFS Health Council advisory process.

Marjolein Lotte de Boer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sociology of health & illness, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The Hidden Hierarchy of Illness.Advances in rehabilitation science and practice
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Marjolein Lotte de BoerDepartment of Culture Studies, School of Humanities, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4249-0485

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In healthcare settings, patient participation is increasingly adopted as a possible remedy to ill people suffering from 'epistemic injustices' - that is to their unfair harming as knowers. In exploring and interpreting patient participation discourses within the 2013-2018 Dutch Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME)/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) Health Council advisory process, this paper assesses the epistemological emancipatory value of this participatory practice. It reveals that in the analysed case, patient representatives predominantly offer biomedical knowledge about ME/CFS. They frame this condition as primarily somatic, and accordingly, perceive appropriate diagnostic criteria, research avenues and treatment options as quantifiable, objectifiable and explicitly non-psychogenic. This paper argues that such a dominant biomedical patient participatory practice is ambiguous in terms of its ability to correct epistemic injustices towards ill people. Biomedicalized patient participation may enhance people's credibility and their ability to make sense of their illness, but it may also undermine their valid position within participatory practices as well as lead to (sustaining) biased and reductive ideas about who ill people are and what kind of knowledge they hold. The final section of this paper offers a brief reflection on how to navigate such biomedicalized participatory practices in order to attain more emancipatory ones.

Indexed as

Fatigue Syndrome, ChronicHumansKnowledgePatient AdvocacyPatient ParticipationSocial Justicechronic fatigue syndromediscourse analysisepistemic injusticehealth councilmyalgic encephalomyelitispatient participationsocial epistemology

Identifiers

PMID34137042
PMCPMC8453904

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.