Suchergebnisse

Biomedical data, both in 'traditional', analogue forms as well as in the form of digital, 'big' data, are contingent social products. They reflect the categories and practices that structure our societies. We illustrate this by discussing gender biases in data stemming from clinical trials and electronic health records (EHR) and consider how biomedical data are prone to bias in different phases of data work, from data capture and representation to category building and analysis to using outputs. We argue that developments such as 'Personalised' and 'Precision Medicine' that have been made possible by 'big data' analyses could be seen as a shift away from the male 'standard patient' by trying to comprehensively and objectively represent many different aspects of patients' lives and bodies. At the same time, the very promises of comprehensiveness and objectivity are problematic: The data generated and collected, as well as the infrastructures and analytic tools used to do this, reflect the social realities – including the injustices and inequities – within which they were developed. The knowledge created on the basis of this 'evidence' can thus perpetuate existing biases. While we do not subscribe to a view of the world that considers truly objective, neutral, and – in this sense – 'unbiased' knowledge possible or even desirable, we suggest a number of ways in which gender bias in biomedical data should be made visible, reflected upon, and in certain instances acted upon.

"Disadvantaged groups, such as migrant patients facing language and cultural barriers, often have a harder time getting medically necessary services. Drawing upon data from interviews with, and observations of, healthcare workers in Vienna, Austria, we suggest that they play an important role closing structural gaps within a solidarity-based healthcare system. In our analysis of the lived solidarity of healthcare workers we found three different types of practices: First, by practices that we call concretising solidarity, healthcare workers act as the mouth, ear, and arm of a solidarity-based healthcare system. They shape solidaristic institutions through their everyday practice. Second, they fill gaps left open by institutionalised solidarity in the healthcare system. Such practices of compensating solidarity become an inherent corrective to the system. A third form of lived solidarity, creating solidarity, goes one step further by trying to create new rules that change the existing norms and instruments (new laws, but also new criteria for the allocation of resources, etc.). We argue that paying systematic attention to these practices of lived solidarity can help us to improve healthcare services and to ensure that they do not leave disadvantaged and marginalised people behind. "

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, research has explored various aspects of face mask use. While most of the research explores their effectiveness to prevent the spread of the virus, a growing body of literature has found that using face masks also has social meaning. But what social meaning does it have, and how does this meaning express itself in people's practice? Based on 413 qualitative interviews with residents in five European countries (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland, and Switzerland), we found that the meanings of face masks have changed drastically during the first months of the pandemic. While in spring 2020 people wearing them had to fear stigmatization, in autumn of 2020 not wearing masks was more likely to be stigmatized. Throughout the first year of the pandemic, we found that mask wearing had multiple and partly seemingly contradictory meanings for people. They were perceived as obstacles for non-verbal communication, but also a way to affirm friendships and maintain social contacts. They also signaled specific moral or political stances on the side of face mask wearers and non-wearers alike, expressed their belonging to certain communities, or articulated concern. In sum, our findings show how face masks serve as scripts for people to navigate their lives during the COVID-19 pandemic. We conclude that public and political discussions concerning face masks should include not only evidence on the epidemiological and infectiological effects of face masks, but also on their social meanings and their social effects.

AbstractDrawing upon 152 in-depth qualitative interviews with residents in Austria carried out in the first year of the pandemic, this article discusses how people's experiences with COVID-19 policies reflect and reshape state–citizen relations. Coinciding with a significant government crisis, the first year of COVID-19 in Austria saw pandemic measures justified with reference to a biological, often medical understanding of health that framed disease prevention in terms of transmission reduction, often with reference to metrics such as hospitalisation rates, etc. Instead of using this biomedical frame, our interviewees, however, drew attention to biopsychosocial dimensions of the crisis and problematised the entanglements between economy and health. We call this the emergence of a biosocial notion of citizenship that is attentive to psychological, social and economic dimensions of health. Insights into the biosocial nature of pandemic citizenship open a window of opportunity for addressing long-standing social injustices.