The sharing of experiences between patients has become increasingly privileged as a source of knowledge and support in contemporary healthcare. Despite this, relatively little is known about the processes whereby people's experiences become, or fail to become, valued as sources of health-related knowledge in different contexts. Through a secondary analysis of 87 interviews conducted between 2006 and 2008 in the UK with people affected by motor neurone disease (46 interviews) and Parkinson's disease (41 interviews), we explore the identity work involved in turning other people's experiences into 'experiential knowledge' that can be shared between patients. Of particular interest is how the turning of others' experiences into knowledge is presupposed by negotiating a particular type of identity tension - what, drawing on the work of Paul Ricoeur (2003) on metaphor, we refer to as 'being differently the same'. We examine the way in which people living with motor neurone disease and Parkinson's disease spoke of managing this tension as part of the process of accessing and valuing other patients' experiences, both epistemologically and emotionally. Instead of treating others' experiences as a pre-given source of knowledge, we emphasise how experience comes to be embodied and articulated through different media - bodies, speech, text, and images. Moreover, we suggest that paying closer attention to these media provides opportunities for enhancing our understanding of how people with different chronic and/or terminal illnesses use or do not use different forms of peer support - and in particular online ones - as a source of health-related experiential knowledge. Some of the implications of this are discussed in the specific context of people diagnosed with incurable neurodegenerative conditions characterised by visible physical deterioration and associated emotional distress.

ObjectiveVenoplasty has been proposed, alongside the theory of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI), as a treatment for multiple sclerosis (MS). Despite concerns about its efficacy and safety, thousands of patients have undergone the procedure. This paper analyses YouTube videos where patients have shared their treatment experiences.MethodsContent analysis on the 100 most viewed videos from over 4000 identified in a search for ‘CCSVI’, and qualitative thematic analysis on popular ‘channels’ demonstrating patients’ experiences.ResultsVideos adopt an overwhelmingly positive stance towards CCSVI; many were uploaded by patients and present pre- and/or post-treatment experiences. Patients demonstrate rather than merely describe their symptoms, performing tests on themselves before and after treatment to quantify improvement. Videos combine medical terminology and tests with personal experiences of living with MS.ConclusionSocial media technologies provide patients with novel opportunities for advocating for particular treatments; generating alternative forms of ‘evidence’ built on a hybrid of personal experience and medical knowledge.Practice implicationsHealthcare practitioners need to engage with new digital forms of content, including online social media. Instead of disregarding sources not considered ‘evidence-based’, practitioners should enhance their understanding of what ‘experiential-evidence’ is deemed significant to patients, particularly in contested areas of healthcare.

Illness narratives play a central role in social studies of health and illness, serving as both a key theoretical focus and a popular research method. Despite this, relatively little work has gone into conceptualising how and why illness narratives -be they in books, websites, television or other media -are commodified in contemporary healthcare and its social environment; namely, how distinctive forms of value are generated in the production, circulation, use and exchange of illness narratives. In this article we propose the notion of biographical value as a first step towards conceptualising the values attributed to illness narratives in this context. Based on a secondary analysis of 37 interviews with people affected by 15 different health conditions in the UK (all of whom have shared their illness experiences across various media) and drawing on understandings of value in research on the bioeconomy and the concept of biovalue in particular, we sketch out how epistemic, ethical and economic forms of value converge and coconstitute each other in the notion of biographical value and in broader economies of illness experiences.

Since the earliest days of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, talking about the virus has been a key way affected communities have challenged the fear and discrimination directed against them and pressed for urgent medical and political attention. Today, HIV/AIDS is one of the most prolifically and intimately documented of all health conditions, with entrenched infrastructures, practices and technologies--what Vinh-Kim Nguyen has dubbed 'confessional technologies'--aimed at encouraging those affected to share their experiences. Among these technologies, we argue, is the semi-structured interview: the principal methodology used in qualitative social science research focused on patient experiences. Taking the performative nature of the research interview as a talking technology seriously has epistemological implications not merely for how we interpret interview data, but also for how we understand the role of research interviews in the enactment of 'life with HIV'. This paper focuses on one crucial aspect of this enactment: the contemporary 'normalisation' of HIV as 'just another' chronic condition--a process taking place at the level of individual subjectivities, social identities, clinical practices and global health policy, and of which social science research is a vital part. Through an analysis of 76 interviews conducted in London (2009-10), we examine tensions in the experiential narratives of individuals living with HIV in which life with the virus is framed as 'normal', yet where this 'normality' is beset with contradictions and ambiguities. Rather than viewing these as a reflection of resistances to or failures of the enactment of HIV as 'normal', we argue that, insofar as these contradictions are generated by the research interview as a distinct 'talking technology', they emerge as crucial to the normative (re)production of what counts as 'living with HIV' (in the UK) and are an inherent part of the broader performative 'normalisation' of the virus.

Background Online customer feedback has become routine in many industries, but it has yet to be harnessed for service improvement in health care. Objectives To identify the current evidence on online patient feedback; to identify public and health professional attitudes and behaviour in relation to online patient feedback; to explore the experiences of patients in providing online feedback to the NHS; and to examine the practices and processes of online patient feedback within NHS trusts. Design A multimethod programme of five studies: (1) evidence synthesis and stakeholder consultation; (2) questionnaire survey of the public; (3) qualitative study of patients’ and carers’ experiences of creating and using online comment; (4) questionnaire surveys and a focus group of health-care professionals; and (5) ethnographic organisational case studies with four NHS secondary care provider organisations. Setting The UK. Methods We searched bibliographic databases and conducted hand-searches to January 2018. Synthesis was guided by themes arising from consultation with 15 stakeholders. We conducted a face-to-face survey of a representative sample of the UK population (n = 2036) and 37 purposively sampled qualitative semistructured interviews with people with experience of online feedback. We conducted online surveys of 1001 quota-sampled doctors and 749 nurses or midwives, and a focus group with five allied health professionals. We conducted ethnographic case studies at four NHS trusts, with a researcher spending 6–10 weeks at each site. Results Many people (42% of internet users in the general population) read online feedback from other patients. Fewer people (8%) write online feedback, but when they do one of their main reasons is to give praise. Most online feedback is positive in its tone and people describe caring about the NHS and wanting to help it (‘caring for care’). They also want their feedback to elicit a response as part of a conversation. Many professionals, especially doctors, are cautious about online feedback, believing it to be mainly critical and unrepresentative, and rarely encourage it. From a NHS trust perspective, online patient feedback is creating new forms of response-ability (organisations needing the infrastructure to address multiple channels and increasing amounts of online feedback) and responsivity (ensuring responses are swift and publicly visible). Limitations This work provides only a cross-sectional snapshot of a fast-emerging phenomenon. Questionnaire surveys can be limited by response bias. The quota sample of doctors and volunteer sample of nurses may not be representative. The ethnographic work was limited in its interrogation of differences between sites. Conclusions Providing and using online feedback are becoming more common for patients who are often motivated to give praise and to help the NHS improve, but health organisations and professionals are cautious and not fully prepared to use online feedback for service improvement. We identified several disconnections between patient motivations and staff and organisational perspectives, which will need to be resolved if NHS services are to engage with this source of constructive criticism and commentary from patients. Future work Intervention studies could measure online feedback as an intervention for service improvement and longitudinal studies could examine use over time, including unanticipated consequences. Content analyses could look for new knowledge on specific tests or treatments. Methodological work is needed to identify the best approaches to analysing feedback. Study registration The ethnographic case study work was registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33095169. Funding This project was funded by the National institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 7, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.