Towards collaborative tinkering in contraceptive consultations
Negotiating side-effects in contraceptive care
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4218393 |
|---|---|
| Authors | E Algera (0000-0003-1697-4144, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Volume | 30 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 41-58 |
| Publication date | 2025-02-18 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Health An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health Illness and Medicine (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1363-4593 • E-ISSN: 1461-7196 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1177/13634593251319920 |
| PMID | 39964237 |
| OpenAlex | W4407719948 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 30 |
Patients' online information-seeking and sharing has sparked worries about medical misinformation and declining trust in biomedical professionals. At the same time, scholars advocate for including patients as knowers in the clinical encounter. Yet we lack empirical insights into the differing ways care providers and patients substantiate health-related knowledge. This article thus examines (1) how both groups substantiate claims about contraceptive side-effects, (2) the ways their substantiation processes differ and (3) how we can navigate this epistemic tension in contraceptive care. I draw on data from nine interviews with Dutch contraceptive care providers (one nurse practitioner, one gynaecologist and seven general practitioners) and 17 contraceptive users, observations of 11 contraceptive consultations in the Netherlands and analysis of Dutch clinical guidelines. Results reveal that patients substantiate their claims through combining embodied modes of knowing with self-experimentation as well as validation through social media exchanges. Care providers switch between two complementary approaches: demarcating biomedical knowledge from non-scientific claims and clinical tinkering. I show that epistemic tensions between provider and patient may arise because the two groups have differing definitions of what a side-effect is and differing evaluations of information shared online. Based on these findings, I argue that care providers invalidating information shared online may contribute to patients' growing distrust in biomedical authority while collaborative tinkering may provide a common ground for care providers and patients to co-create knowledge
Distrust · Health care · Internet privacy · Misinformation · Negotiation · Political science · Public relations · Computer Science · Law · Medicine · Mental Health and Patient Involvement · Nursing · Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare · Psychology · Social Media in Health Education
Medicalization and epistemic injustice
Investigating Trust, Expertise, and Epistemic Injustice in Chronic Pain
Epistemic solidarity in medicine and healthcare
On the verge between the scientific and the alternative
Care in Practice
The Nocebo Effect and Its Relevance for Clinical Practice
Reasons for rejecting hormonal contraception in Western countries
Misconceptions, Misinformation, and Misperceptions
Knowing Patients
Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science
Patient-centered or population-centered? How epistemic discrepancies cause harm and sow mistrust
This is what the truth is
Collective self-experimentation in patient-led research
Proving or Improving
Epistemic tensions between people living with asthma and healthcare professionals in clinical encounters
The meaning of medications
We have to be mythbusters
The tinkering m-patient
The Body Multiple
Contesting and Differentially Constructing Uncertainty
The different facets of 'experiential knowledge' in Swedish women's claims about systemic side effects of the copper intrauterine device
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 3 |
| Citation span | 2025 - 2026 (2) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |