Search

Much of the medical literature on patient compliance explores why patients fail to follow practitioners' instructions. This paper explores perspectives on 'compliance' expressed in online discussion groups for kidney patients. Discourse analysis was used to investigate how contributors conceptualise knowledge and the role of the renal patient. In the discussion groups, patients were sometimes seen to have better understanding of the details of their illness than some practitioners, a focus born of inhabiting their situation and therefore having more at stake. Some patients set themselves the task of supervising their own care, double checking the work of practitioners. This did not threaten biomedical knowledge, but these counter-discourses challenge professional boundaries by making it the prerogative of patients to obtain biomedical knowledge. I explore issues of surveillance and frustration, and the potential usefulness of patients' overseeing their own safety, while flagging the potential plight of less 'empowered' or motivated patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article draws upon research involving in-depth interviews with 60 mothers of young children about the home healthcare in which they engage when promoting their children's health and dealing with their illnesses, allergies or developmental problems. The study found that a series of often interconnected discourses were evident in the women's accounts. These included the discourses of health states as controllable, good health as an outcome of good management and the child's body as vulnerable. Other discourses were related to the concept of the 'good mother'. The interviewees also employed the discourses of home healthcare as emotionally distressing and as hard work and of children's illness as a mother's loss of control. As this suggests, such caring was often an intensely embodied and negative emotional experience for the mothers, particularly if they felt as if they had lost control over their children's bodies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This qualitative study into Australian manhood featured 63 men discussing 'acceptable' masculinity. Homophobic humour emerged as central to the formation of Australian male identity, but it had the potential to induce violence and emotional damage when the 'humour' moved along a malleable continuum from good-natured banter to abuse. Significantly, it was men of all sexualities who were targeted, indicating that it was non-conformity to gender norms as well as sexuality being policed, as boys and men used humour to control and humiliate each other. Recollections of these instances ranged from 'it was just a joke' for some perpetrators, to 'orchestrated cruelty' for men who had been victimised. Some of the latter group reported depression extending into their adult lives based on their youthful experiences. Understanding the impact when humour goes 'beyond a joke' is important for policy makers, educators and healthcare workers, as a potential for emotional damage and physical violence is highlighted. The study highlights the importance of understanding masculinity as an influence on men's health and wellness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]