Advertisement

Internet, Expert Patient, and Empowerment: Activity Profiles in Virtual Communities of Chronic Kidney Patients

  • André Pereira Neto
  • Julyane Felipette Lima
  • Leticia Barbosa
  • Eda Schwartz
Chapter

Abstract

In recent decades, the Internet has become an integral part of the daily lives of millions of people around the world, engendering multiple transformations. In the health sector, it is increasingly used as a source of information and advice. In this context, the “expert patient” stands out. This is an individual who becomes a specialist by conducting an extensive search for information about his health condition online and sharing his experiences in virtual communities. In the face of this setting, this chapter reflects on the relationship between empowerment, “expert patient,” and the biomedical model by examining two online groups on Facebook that include chronic kidney patients and their relatives, friends, and caregivers. It identifies the activity profiles of participants posting messages – the posters. We identify three “ideal types” of posters: one has a supportive nature, another is concerned with the clinical realm of the disease, and the third is committed to patient’s rights. The results indicate that supportive and clinical posters reiterate the biomedical order, while the citizen poster is concerned with the patient’s rights as a citizen.

Keywords

Expert patient Empowerment Online health information Facebook Kidney diseases 

References

  1. Ahluwalia, Sanjiv, Elizabeth Murray, Fiona Stevenson, Cicely Kerr, and Jo Burns. 2010. A heartbeat moment’: Qualitative study of GP views of patients bringing health information from the internet to a consultation. The British Journal of General Practice 60: 80–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altamirano, Ana Fernández-Aballí. 2016. Where is Paulo Freire. In The international communication gazette, vol. 78, 1–7.Google Scholar
  3. Amichai-Hamburger, Yair, Katelyn Y.A. McKenna, and Samuel-Azran Tald. 2008. E-empowerment: Empowerment by the internet. Computers in Human Behavior 24: 1776–1789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arantes, Rodolfo L. 2008. Avaliação do risco cardiovascular em pacientes com doença renal crônica: importância e limitação dos diferentes métodos. Rev Bras Hipertens 15: 173–176.Google Scholar
  5. Araujo, James. 2013. A análise do discurso no contexto da comunicação na saúde: elementos para uma abordagem do direito à informação na interação entre médico e paciente. C&S 34: 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aron, Raymond. 1999. Main currents of sociological thought: Durkheim, Pareto, Weber. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Belfort, Maíra, and Arcângela Sena. 2015. Cibercidadania: um estudo de caso do site vakinha.com.br Puçá 2: 1–35
  8. Bimber, Bruce, Andrew Flanagin, and Cynthia Stohl. 2012. Collective action in organizations: Interactions and engagement in an era of technological change. Nova York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brazil. Presidência da República. Casa Civil. 2015. Lei n° 13.146, de 6 de julho de 2015. Institui a Lei Brasileira de Inclusão da Pessoa com Deficiência (Estatuto da Pessoa com Deficiência). Diário Oficial da República Federativa do Brasil, 7 jul 2015.Google Scholar
  10. Canziani, Maria Eugênia F. 2004. Doenças cardiovasculares na doença renal crônica. Jornal Brasileiro de Nefrologia 26: 20–21.Google Scholar
  11. Charon, Joel M. 2010. Symbolic Interactionism: An introduction, an interpretation, an integration. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  12. Choudhury, Naziat. 2009. The question of empowerment: Women’s perspective on their internet use. Gender, Technology and Development 13: 341–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coutinho, Virgínia. 2014. The social book: tudo o que precisa saber sobre Facebook. Coimbra: Conjuntura Actual.Google Scholar
  14. Facebook. 2010. Facebook tips: What’s the difference between a Facebook page and group? https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook/facebook-tips-whats-the-difference-between-a-facebook-page-and-group/324706977130/. Accessed 2 Jan 2018.
  15. ———. 2018. Criar e gerenciar uma página. https://www.facebook.com/help/135275340210354/?helpref=hc_fnav. Accessed 30 Mar 2018.
  16. Feenberg, Andrew L., Jonathan M. Licht, Kathleen P. Kane, Kay Moran, and Richard A. Smith. 1996. The online patient meeting. Journal of the Neurological Sciences 139: 129–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fox, Susannah. 2011. Peer-to-peer healthcare. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.Google Scholar
  18. Fox, N., K.J. Ward, and A.J. O’rourke. 2005. The ‘expert patient’: Empowerment or medical dominance? The case of weight loss, pharmaceutical drugs and the Internet. Social Science & Medicine 60: 1299–1309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Freire, Paulo. 1994. Pedagogy of hope: reliving pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  20. ———. 2015. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  21. García-Llana, Helena, Eduardo Remor, and Rafael Selgas. 2013. Adherence to treatment, emotional state and quality of life in patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing dialysis. Psicothema 25: 79–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Giddens, Anthony. 1991. Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in late modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gouveia, Denise, Alexandre Tortoza Bignelli, Silvia Regina Hokazono, Itamara Danucalov, Tobias August Siemens, et al. 2017. Analysis of economic impact between the modality of renal replacement therapy. Jornal Brasileiro de Nefrologia 39: 162–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holmes, Michelle, Felicity L. Bishop, and Lynn Calman. 2017. “I just googled and read everything”: Exploring breast cancer survivors’ use of the internet to find information on complementary medicine. Complementary Therapies in Medicine 33: 78–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jay, Colleen, Patrick G. Dean, Ryan A. Helmick, and Mark D. Stegall. 2016. Reassessing preemptive kidney transplantation in the United States: Are we making progress? Transplantation 100: 1120–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jordan, Tim. 2014. Internet, society and culture: Communicative practices before and after the internet. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  27. Kaplan, Andreas, and Michael Haenlein. 2010. Users of the world, unite!: The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons 53: 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kim, Yong-Mi. 2015. Is seeking health information online different from seeking general information online? Journal of Information Science 41: 228–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kolb, David. 1984. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  30. Kopelson, Karen. 2009. Writing patients’ wrongs: The rhetoric and reality of information age medicine. JAC 29: 353–404.Google Scholar
  31. Kosinski, Michal, Sandra C. Matz, Samuel D. Gosling, Vesselin Popov, and David Stillwell. 2015. Facebook as a research tool for the social sciences: Opportunities, challenges, ethical considerations, and practical guidelines. The American Psychologist 70: 543–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kozinets, Robert V. 2010. Netnography: doing ethnographic research online. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Lévy, Pierre. 2001. Cyberculture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  34. Li, Jinhui, Yin-Leng Theng, and Schubert Foo. 2015. Predictors of online health information seeking behavior: Changes between 2002 and 2012. Health Informatics Journal 22: 1–11.Google Scholar
  35. Libardoni, Marlene. 2000. Fundamentos teóricos e visão estratégica da Advocacy. Revista Estudos Feministas 8: 1–15.Google Scholar
  36. Lin, Wan-Ying, Xinzhi Zhang, Hayeon Song, and Kikuko Omori. 2016. Health information seeking in the Web 2.0 age: Trust in social media, uncertainty reduction, and self-disclosure. Computers in Human Behavior 56: 289–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lincoln, Nicola Denham, Cheryl Travers, Peter Ackers, and Adrian Wilkinson. 2002. The meaning of empowerment: The interdisciplinary etymology of a new management concept. International Journal of Management Reviews 4: 271–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lins, Silvia Maria de Sá Basilio, Josete Luzia Leite, Simone de Godoy, Patrícia dos Santos Claro Fuly, Silvia Teresa Carvalho de Araújo, and Ítalo Rodolfo Silva. 2017. Cultural adaptation of the end-stage renal disease adherence questionnaire for hemodialysis patients. Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem 70: 1169–1175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Louvison, Marilia Cristina Prado, Mônica Aparecida Marcondes Cecilio, Vera Lucia Lopes Rodrigues Osiano, Silvany Lemes Cruvinel Portas, and Ricardo Sesso. 2011. Prevalência de pacientes em terapia renal substitutiva no Estado de São Paulo. Bol epidemiol paul 8: 23–42.Google Scholar
  40. Lugon, Jocemir R. 2009. Doença renal crônica no Brasil: um problema de saúde pública. Brazilian Journal of Nephrology 31: 2–5.Google Scholar
  41. Mano, Rita S. 2014. Social media and online health services: A health empowerment perspective to online health information. Computers in Human Behavior 39: 404–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Markham, Annette, and Elizabeth Buchanan. 2012. Ethical decision-making and internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR ethics working committee (Version 2.0). https://aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf
  43. McAllister, Marion, Graham Dunn, Katherine Payne, Linda Davies, and Chris Todd. 2012. Patient empowerment: The need to consider it as a measurable patient-reported outcome for chronic conditions. BMC Health Services Research 12: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Miller, Lisa M.S., and Robert A. Bell. 2012. Online health information seeking: The influence of age, information trustworthiness, and search challenges. Journal of Aging and Health 24: 525–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ministry of Health. 2018. Saúde incorpora procedimento de hemodiálise para pacientes em trânsito. http://portalms.saude.gov.br/noticias/agencia-saude/42715-saude-incorpora-procedimento-de-hemodialise-para-pacientes-em-transito. Accessed 20 Apr 2018.
  46. Mo, Phoenix K.H., and Neil S. Coulson. 2010. Empowering processes in online support groups among people living with HIV/AIDS: A comparative analysis of ‘lurkers’ and ‘posters’. Computers in Human Behavior 26: 1183–1193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. ———. 2014. Are online support groups always beneficial?: A qualitative exploration of the empowering and disempowering processes of participation within HIV/AIDS-related online support groups. International Journal of Nursing Studies 51: 983–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Moretti, Felipe Azevedo, and Claudia Barsottini. 2017. Support, attention and distant guidance for chronic pain patients: Case report. Revista Dor 18: 85–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Murray, Elizabeth, Joanne Burns, Sharon See Tai, Rosalind Lai, and Irwin Nazareth. 2005. Interactive health communication applications for people with chronic disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004274.pub4.
  50. Narayan, Deepa. 2002. Empowerment and poverty reduction: A sourcebook. World Bank Publications.Google Scholar
  51. National Kidney Foundation. 2013. KDIGO 2012 clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and Management of Chronic Kidney Disease. Kidney International Supplements 3: 1–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pereira Neto, André, Letícia Barbosa, Adriano da Silva, and Monica Lucia Gomes Dantas. 2015. O paciente informado e os saberes médicos: um estudo de etnografia virtual em comunidades de doentes no Facebook. História, Ciências, Saúde – Manguinhos 22: 1653–1671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Page, Nanette, and Cheryl Czuba. 1999. Empowerment: What is it? Journal of Extension 37.Google Scholar
  54. Rieder, Bernhard. 2013. Studying Facebook via data extraction: The Netvizz application. 5th annual ACM web science conference, ACM, 346–355.Google Scholar
  55. Riger, Stephanie. 1993. What’s wrong with empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology 21: 279–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Riggare, Sara, Pär J. Höglund, Helena Hvitfeldt Forsberg, Elena Eftimovska, Per Svenningsson, and Maria Hägglund. 2017. Patients are doing it for themselves: A survey on disease-specific knowledge acquisition among people with Parkinson’s disease in Sweden. Health Informatics Journal.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458217704248.
  57. Rissel, Christopher. 1994. Empowerment: The holy grail of health promotion? Health Promotion International 9: 39–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ryhänen, Anne M., Sirkku Rankinen, Mervi Siekkinen, Maiju Saarinen, Heikki Korvenranta, and Helena Leino-Kilpi. 2012. The impact of an empowering Internet-based breast Cancer patient pathway programme on breast cancer patients’ knowledge: A randomised control trial. Patient Education and Counseling 88: 224–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schwartz, Eda, Rosani Manfrin Muniz, Andréia Burille, Juliana Graciela Vestena Zillmer, Danubia Andressa da Silva, Aline Machado Feijó, and Maria Emília Nunes Bueno. 2009. As redes de apoio no enfrentamento da doença renal crônica. REME – Revista Mineira de Enfermagem 13: 183–192.Google Scholar
  60. Shaw, Joanne, and Mary Baker. 2004. “Expert patient”: dream or nightmare? The concept of a well informed patient is welcome, but a new name is needed. British Medical Journal 328: 723–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Silva, Letícia Krauss, Rachel Bregman, Dulce Lessi, Beatriz Leimann, and Mariane Branco Alves. 2012. Ensaio sobre a cegueira: mortalidade de pacientes com doença renal crônica em hemodiálise de emergência. Ciênc saúde coletiva 17: 2971–2980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Srinivasan, Ramesh, and Adam Fish. 2017. After the Internet. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  63. Stafford, J., and H. Mitchell. 2009. Advocacy in action: A toolkit for public health professionals. Perth: Public Health Advocacy Institute of Western Australia.Google Scholar
  64. Tattersall, Robert. 2002. The expert patient: A new approach to chronic disease management for the twenty-first century. Clinical Medicine (London, England) 2: 227–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Terra, Fábio de Souza, Ana Maria Duarte Dias Costa, Estevão Tavares de Figueiredo, Alline Moterani de Morais, Marina Dias Costa, and Rosane Dias Costa. 2010. As principais complicações apresentadas pelos pacientes renais crônicos durante as sessões de hemodiálise. Rev Bras Clin Med 8: 187–192.Google Scholar
  66. Torchi, Thalita Souza, Sílvia Teresa Carvalho de Araújo, Alessandra Guimarães Monteiro Moreira, Giselle Barcellos Oliveira Koeppe, and Bruna Tavares Uchoa dos Santos. 2014. Condições clínicas e comportamento de procura de cuidados de saúde pelo paciente renal crônico. Acta Paulista Enfermagem 27: 585–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Turner, Bryan. 1994. Outline of a theory of citizenship. In Citizenship: Critical concepts, ed. Bryan S. Turner and Peter Hamilton. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  68. Wallerstein, N. 2006. What is the evidence on effectiveness of empowerment to improve health?: Health evidence network report. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.Google Scholar
  69. Weber, Max. 1949. The methodology of the social sciences. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  70. WHO - World Health Organization. 2009. Milestones in health promotion: Statements from global conferences. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  71. Wilson, Patricia, Sally Kendall, and Fiona Brooks. 2007. The expert patients Programme: A paradox of patient empowerment and medical dominance. Health & Social Care in the Community 15: 426–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Xavier, Aline, Ana Oliveira, and Marislei Brasileiro. 2012. Evolução histórica da hemodiálise e dos acessos vasculares para a assistência ao doente renal crônico. Rev Eletr Enferm Centro Estudos Enferm e Nut 4: 1–15.Google Scholar
  73. Zimmerman, Marc A. 1995. Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations. American Journal of Community Psychology 23: 581–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • André Pereira Neto
    • 1
  • Julyane Felipette Lima
    • 2
  • Leticia Barbosa
    • 3
  • Eda Schwartz
    • 4
  1. 1.National School of Public HealthOswaldo Cruz FoundationRio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.Faculty of NursingFederal University of the Southern FrontierChapecóBrazil
  3. 3.Institute of Scientific and Technological Communication and Information in HealthOswaldo Cruz FoundationRio de JaneiroBrazil
  4. 4.Faculty of NursingFederal University of PelotasPelotasBrazil

Personalised recommendations