Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
Add filters

Database
Main subject
Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
medrxiv; 2024.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2024.04.13.24305152

ABSTRACT

Long Covid is the continuation or development of symptoms related to a SARSCoV2 infection. Those with Long Covid may face epistemic injustice, where they are unjustifiably viewed as unreliable evaluators of their own illness experiences. Media articles both reflect and influence perception and subsequently how people regard children and young people (CYP) with Long Covid, and may contribute to epistemic injustice.? We aimed to explore how the UK media characterises Long Covid in CYP through examining three key actor groups: parents, healthcare professionals, and CYP with Long Covid, through the lens of epistemic injustice. A systematic search strategy resulted in the inclusion of 103 UK media articles. We used an adapted corpus-assisted Critical Discourse Analysis in tandem with thematic analysis. Specifically, we utilised search terms to locate concordances of key actor groups. In the corpus, parents highlighted minimisation of Long Covid, barriers to care, and experiences of personal attacks. Mothers were presented as also having Long Covid. Fathers were not mentioned once. Healthcare professionals emphasised the rarity of Long Covid in CYP, avoided pathologizing Long Covid, and overemphasised psychological components. CYP rarely were consulted in media articles but were presented as formerly very able. Manifestations of Long Covid in CYP were validated or invalidated in relation to adults. Media characterisations contributed to epistemic injustice. The disempowering portrayal of parents promote stigma and barriers to care. Healthcare professionals' narratives often contributed to negative healthcare experiences and enacted testimonial injustice, where CYP and parents credibility was diminished due to unfair identity prejudice, in their invalidation of Long Covid. Media characterisations reveal and maintain a lack of societal framework for understanding Long Covid in CYP. The findings of this study illustrate the discursive practices employed by journalists that contribute to experiences of epistemic injustice. Based on our findings, we propose recommendations for journalists.

2.
medrxiv; 2024.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2024.01.03.24300767

ABSTRACT

Background and aimLong Covid can be a stigmatising condition, particularly in people who are disadvantaged within society. This may prevent them seeking help and could lead to widening health inequalities. This co-produced study with a Community Advisory Board of people with Long Covid aimed to understand healthcare and wider barriers and stigma experienced by people with probable Long Covid. MethodsAn active case finding approach was employed to find adults with probable, but not yet clinically diagnosed, Long Covid in two localities in London (Camden and Merton) and Derbyshire, England. Interviews explored the barriers to care, and the stigma faced by participants and analysed thematically. This study forms part of the STIMULATE-ICP Collaboration. FindingsTwenty-three interviews were completed. Participants reported limited awareness of what Long Covid is and the available pathways to management. There was considerable self-doubt among participants, sometimes reinforced by interactions with healthcare professionals. Participants questioned their deservedness of seeking healthcare support for their symptoms. Hesitancy to engage with healthcare services was motivated by fear of needing more investigation and concerns regarding judgement about ability to carry out caregiving responsibilities. It was also motivated by the complexity of the clinical presentation and fear of all symptoms being attributed to poor mental health. Participants also reported trying to avoid overburdening the health system. These difficulties were compounded by experiences of stigma and discrimination. The emerging themes reaffirmed a framework of epistemic injustice in relation to Long Covid, where creating, interpreting, and conveying knowledge has varied credibility based on the tellers identity characteristics and/or the level of their interpretive resources. ConclusionWe have developed recommendations based on the findings. These include early signposting to services, dedicating protected time to listen to people with Long Covid, providing a holistic approach in care pathways, and working to mitigate stigma. Regardless of the diagnosis, people experiencing new symptoms must be encouraged to seek timely medical help. Clear public health messaging is needed among communities already disadvantaged by epistemic injustice to raise awareness of Long Covid, and to share stories that encourage seeking care and to illustrate the adverse effects of stigma. Patient or Public ContributionThis study was co-produced with a Community Advisory Board (CAB) made up of twenty-three members including healthcare professionals, people with lived experience of Long Covid and other stakeholders.

3.
medrxiv; 2022.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2022.08.24.22278954

ABSTRACT

Background and aim Long Covid is a significant public health concern with potentially negative implications for health inequalities. We know that those who are already socially disadvantaged in society are more exposed to COVID-19, experience the worst health outcomes and are more likely to suffer economically. We also know that these groups are more likely to experience stigma and discrimination and have negative healthcare experiences even before the pandemic. However, little is known about disadvantaged groups experiences of Long Covid and preliminary evidence suggests they may be under-represented in those who access formal care. We will conduct a pilot study in a defined geographical area (Camden, London, UK) to test the feasibility of a community-based approach of identifying Long Covid cases that have not been formally clinically diagnosed and have not been referred to Long Covid Specialist services. We will explore the barriers to accessing recognition, care and support, as well as experiences of stigma and perceived discrimination. Methods This protocol and study materials were co-produced with a Community Advisory Board (CAB) made up primarily of people living with Long Covid. Working with voluntary organisations, promotional material are co-developed and will be distributed in the local community with engagement from key community organisations and leaders to highlight Long Covid symptoms and invite those experiencing them to participate in the study if they are not formally diagnosed and accessing care. Awareness of Long Covid and symptoms, experiences of trying to access care, as well as stigma and discrimination will be explored through qualitative interviews with participants. Upon completion of the interviews, participants will be offered referral to the local social prescribing team to receive support that is personalised to them potentially including, but not restricted to, liaising with their primary care provider and the regional Long Covid clinic run by University College London Hospitals (UCLH). Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been obtained from the Faculty of Medicine Ethics Committee and Research Integrity and Governance, University of Southampton. (reference number 72400). Findings will be reported in a report and submitted for peer-reviewed publication. Definitive methods of dissemination will be decided by the CAB. Summaries of the findings will also be shared on the STIMULATE-ICP website, locally in the study area and through social media. We will specifically target policy makers and those responsible for shaping and commissioning Long Covid healthcare services and social support such as NHSE England Long Covid Group.


Subject(s)
COVID-19
4.
medrxiv; 2022.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2022.05.06.22274658

ABSTRACT

Introduction Individuals with Long Covid represent a new and growing patient population. In England, fewer than 90 Long Covid clinics deliver assessment and treatment informed by NICE guidelines. However, a paucity of clinical trials or longitudinal cohort studies means that the epidemiology, clinical trajectory, healthcare utilisation and effectiveness of current Long Covid care are poorly documented, and that neither evidence-based treatments nor rehabilitation strategies exist. In addition, and in part due to pre-pandemic health inequalities, access to referral and care varies, and patient experience of the Long Covid care pathways can be poor. In a mixed methods study, we therefore aim to: (1) describe the usual healthcare, outcomes and resource utilisation of individuals with Long Covid; (2) assess the extent of inequalities in access to Long Covid care, and specifically to understand Long Covid patients' experiences of stigma and discrimination. Methods and analysis A mixed methods study will address our aims. Qualitative data collection from patients and health professionals will be achieved through surveys, interviews and focus group discussions, to understand their experience and document the function of clinics. A patient cohort study will provide an understanding of outcomes and costs of care. Accessible data will be further analysed to understand the nature of Long Covid, and the care received. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was obtained from South Central - Berkshire Research Ethics Committee (reference 303958). The dissemination plan will be decided by the patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) group members and study Co-Is, but will target 1) policy makers, and those responsible for commissioning and delivering Long Covid services, 2) patients and the public, and 3) academics.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL