Search

The sociology of diagnosis has shown that diagnosis not only serves to label the underlying cause of disease but also to provide access to services and resources. Elaborating on this double‐affordance of diagnosis, this article examines how precision medicine reconfigures diagnosis as a label and as a process in regulatory and clinical settings. Reporting from an ethnographic case study of the introduction of immunotherapy for lung cancer, the paper unfolds the uncertainties involved in dissecting diagnosis into layers and examines the efforts and negotiations it takes to enable these layers to work both as clinical entities and regulative entities with the purpose of delineating access to treatment. I suggest that the work of subdividing diseases into molecularly defined categories for the purpose of delineating treatment‐eligible populations can be labelled 'diagnostic sub‐stratification' and argue that it is pertinent to understand the political capacity of this strategy. Diagnostic sub‐stratification involves a push of diagnosis from the clinic 'up' into the regulatory system and 'out' into the laboratories, obscuring who is accountable for the diagnostic categories employed to define patients' treatment access. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article draws on 2 years' worth of ethnographic observation of team meetings to explore decision‐making in an NHS clinical genomics service. The focus of discussions was on ambiguous genomic results known as VUS or Variants of Uncertain Significance, which may be pathogenic but which also may turn out to be benign. In examining decision‐making around such results, we note how, in contrast to much policy and promotional material in this area, clinicians in these meetings (clinical geneticists and genetic counsellors) place great emphasis on parental phenotypes and whether the parents of a patient share the symptoms and signs of the suspected condition. This information is then combined with the result of genomic tests to decide whether the variant a patient has is responsible for their condition. This article explores the way in which clinicians attempt to flexibly enrol parents into genomic explanations through informal diagnosis of their possible phenotypes and the way in which actually meeting parents allows some clinicians to trump explanations based on documentary or photographic data. The paper sheds light on the way that earlier scholarly understandings of such decisions (around, say dysmorphology) remain relevant and explores claims that laboratory tests overrule clinical decision‐making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the potential of the perspective of epistemic injustice to reconcile medical sociology's attention to the micro level of experience and interpersonal exchange, and disability studies' focus on the macro level of oppressive structures. The first part of the paper provides an overview of the concept of epistemic injustice and its key instances—testimonial, hermeneutical, and contributory injustice. We also consider previous applications of the concept in the fields of health care and disability, and we contextualise our investigation by discussing key features of postsocialism from the perspective of epistemic injustice. In the second part, we explore specific epistemic injustices experienced by people who use disability support by drawing on interviews and focus groups conducted with parents of disabled children in present‐day Bulgaria. In our conclusion, we revisit our methodological and theoretical points about the potential of epistemic injustice to facilitate mutually beneficial exchanges between medical sociology and disability studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper draws attention to the health‐related work that disabled people do when engaging with rehabilitation services. Medical sociology has a rich history of looking at the 'illness work' that patients do, while disability studies scholars have explored the cultural value placed upon paid work and the effects on social status of being unable to work. Yet, a longstanding froideur between these two disciplines, which have fundamentally opposed ontologies of illness and disability, means that neither discipline has attended closely to the rehabilitation‐related work that disabled people do. The concept of 'adjusting' to illness highlights seemingly irreconcilable disciplinary differences. Yet this article argues that the notion of 'adjustment work' can elucidate the socio‐political character of the work disabled people do in their rehabilitation, which could create a more substantial and sustainable dialogue on this subject between disability studies and medical sociology. To make this case, we discuss interview data from the Rights‐based Rehabilitation project, which sought to explore disabled people's lived experiences of rehabilitation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The shift towards recovery‐oriented mental health care has led to the extensive growth of peer support in contemporary service delivery. When enacting peer support, peer workers (PWs) use their lived experiences of mental illness to provide support to individuals experiencing mental health difficulties. While PWs are increasingly an integrated part of mental health services, the way in which peer support unfolds in everyday practices remains understudied. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork from Danish mental health centres, this paper investigates how peer workers and users enact experiential knowledge and expertise to support one another. Theoretically, this paper draws on a micro‐sociological approach that comprehends expertise as an interactional accomplishment enacted within institutional arrangements. First, the analysis shows how PWs and users develop affective relations based on shared illness experiences that enable the enactment of expertise. Second, it demonstrates how PWs and users engage in these relations by exchanging sympathy and knowledge according to different situational demands. Third, it shows how experiences of relational limitations make service users contest the value of experiential knowledge and PWs' position as valid experts. Centrally, this paper contributes to a general discussion of expertise and the implications of bringing lived experiences into mental health services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The notion of digital health often remains an empty signifier, employed strategically for a vast array of demands to attract investments and legitimise reforms. Rather scarce are attempts to develop digital health towards an analytic notion that provides avenues for understanding the ongoing transformations in health care. This article develops a sociomaterial approach to understanding digital health, showing how digitalisation affords practices of health and medicine to cope with and utilise the combined and interrelated challenges of increases in quantification (data‐intensive medicine), varieties of connectivity (telemedicine), and unprecedented modes of instantaneous calculation (algorithmic medicine). This enables an engagement with questions about what forms of knowledge, relationships and control are produced through different manifestations of digital health. The paper then sets out, in detail, three innovative strategies that can guide explorations and negotiations into the type of care we want to achieve through digital transformation. These strategies embed Karen Barad's concept of agential cuts suggesting that responsible cuts towards the materialisation of digital health require participatory efforts that recognise the affordances and the generativity of technology developments. Through the sociomaterial approach presented in this article, we aim to lay the foundations to reorient and sensitise innovation and care processes in order to create new possibilities and value‐centric approaches for promoting health in digital societies as opposed to promoting digital health per se. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The lack of ethnic diversity in health research participation is a multi‐dimensional problem. Racism and intersectional disadvantage compel us to use racial and ethnic categories to explore health, but race theorists warn that these can be essentialising and pathologising. Yet, the alternative, the pursuit of colour‐blindness, can render the impact of race and ethnicity on health invisible. This paper describes the attempt to recruit an ethnically diverse sample to inform the development of an intervention for stroke patients. The study revealed deep uncertainties and tensions, which we use to re‐examine our own positionalities and perspectives. We focus on the experiences of researchers and participants to show how 'usual' research practices are unwittingly exclusionary and promote 'methodological whiteness' (The British Journal of Sociology, 2017, 68, S214). Calls for greater diversity in research are frequently made, yet health research remains tainted by the use of problematic epistemological starting points, rendering participation by minoritised people uneasy. Medical sociologists, especially those engaged in clinical trials, have a vital role to play in recalibrating health research to attend to ethnicity and race. This requires us to reflect on our practices, to recognise where we are complicit in replicating social inequalities and to actively engage with communities to produce more inclusive research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper draws on the experience of two Romani and three non‐Romani scholars in knowledge production on the health and social inequalities experienced by European Roma populations. Together, we explore how we might better account for, and work against, the complex web of dynamic oppressions embedded within processes of academic knowledge production. Our aim is to encourage careful scrutiny through which sociologists of health and illness might better recognise our own complicity with oppression and identify concrete actions towards transforming our research practices. Drawing on a well‐known domains of racism typology (Annual Review of Public Health, 40, 2019, 105), we use examples from our own work to illustrate three interconnected domains of oppression in which we have found ourselves entangled (structural, cultural and interpersonal). A new conceptual framework is proposed as an aid to understanding the spectrum of different "types" of complicity (voluntary–involuntary, conscious–unconscious) that one might reproduce across all three domains. We conclude by exploring how sociologists of health and illness might promote a more actively anti‐racist research agenda, identifying and challenging subtle, hidden and embedded negative ideologies and practices as well as more obviously oppressive ones. We hope these reflections will help revitalise important conversations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article offers an overview of an Indigenous‐led participatory research project, The Future We Dream, co‐developed by rural land defenders in Central America and the Caribbean. To engage in recent dialectics concerning complicity and decolonising methodologies, we centre Indigenous Maya conceptions of health, wellbeing and what 'living well' means to community members. For context, The Future We Dream responds to the 2015 landmark ruling made by the Caribbean Court of Justice affirming the land rights of the Maya people of Southern Belize. Amidst tensions with the state that followed the ruling, an autonomous movement composed of grassroots organisers turned their attention towards imagining and constructing a self‐determined future. In turn, the communities initiated a research exercise inspired by desire‐based methodologies (Tuck, 2009) to articulate a collective vision of a healthful Maya future outside of colonial‐liberal worldviews, and notably, formulating Maya visions of healthful, sustainable worlds. In reporting on this one example of grassroots, anticolonial health research that departs from the hierarchal knowledge production practices of liberal academia, this paper details the collaborative process/project; the complexities/complicities of research involving Indigenous communities; and how Indigenous epistemologies are generative vis‐a‐vis unsettling conventional knowledge production practices in the contentious field of global health research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides insights on the urgent need for transformative responses in health and social care services due to challenges such as aging populations, chronic illnesses, infrastructure underinvestment, and workforce shortages. It presents papers that examine different aspects of these transformations, including the adoption of single-handed care.

This paper takes a critical look at the role of chronobiology in society today, with particular reference to its entanglements with health and medicine and whether or not this amounts to the (bio)medicalisation of our bodily rhythms. What we have here, we show, is a complex unfolding storyline, within and beyond medicine. On the one hand, the promises and problems of these circadian, infradian and ultradian rhythms for our health and well‐being are now increasingly emphasised. On the other hand, a variety of new rhythmic interventions and forms of governance are now emerging within and beyond medicine, from chronotherapies and chronopharmacology to biocompatible school and work schedules, and from chronodiets to the optimisation of all we do according to our 'chronotypes'. Conceptualising these developments, we suggest challenges us to think within and beyond medicalisation to wider processes of biomedicalisation and the biopolitics of our body clocks: a vital new strand of chronopolitics today indeed which implicates us all in sickness and in health as the very embodiment of these rhythms of life itself. The paper concludes with a call for further research on these complex unfolding relations between chronobiology, health and society in these desynchronised times of ours. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper contributes to the debate on the patient–doctor relationship by focussing on a specific chronic disease: type 1 diabetes. This field is characterised by an increasing use of technology, specifically therapeutic devices and a significant requirement of patient self‐management. This paper presents the main findings of research conducted in Italy in 2018. It is argued that this relationship is more properly described as an interdependent figuration of actors characterised by a dynamic process of power balances, which recalls Elias' (What is sociology? Columbia University Press, 1978) figurational‐processual and relational sociology. In this theoretical context, patients may manage their (dis)satisfaction with their diabetologists by choosing different behaviours that stem from Hirschman's archetype (Exit, voice, and loyalty. Responses to decline firms, organizations, and states. Harvard University Press, 1970): voice, exit, loyalty and, we would add, resignation. These categories are fluid, and all of them can be experienced by patients over time, depending on the quality of the figurations built among these transactors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]