Cited by 86Health Literacy and Information AccessibilitySocial Media and PoliticsSocial Media in Health Education

Health activism and the logic of connective action. A case study of rare disease patient organisations

Open access
Vicari, Stefania, Cappai, Franco·2016·Information, Communication & Society

Abstract

This exploratory work investigates the role of digital media in expanding health discourse practices in a way to transform traditional structures of agency in public health. By focusing on a sample of rare disease patient organisations as representative of contemporary health activism, this study investigates the role of digital communication in the development of (1) bottom-up sharing and co-production of health knowledge, (2) health public engagement dynamics and (3) health information pathways. Findings show that digital media affordances for patient organisations go beyond the provision of social support for patient communities; they ease one-way, two-way and crowdsourced processes of health knowledge sharing, exchange and co-production, provide personalised routes to health public engagement and bolster the emergence of varied pathways to health information where experiential knowledge and medical authority are equally valued. These forms of organisationally enabled connective action can help the surfacing of personal narratives that strengthen patient communities, the bottom-up production of health knowledge relevant to a wider public and the development of an informational and eventually cultural context that eases patients' political action.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/1369118x.2016.1154587

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Social media allow patient organisations to 'crowdsource' experiential knowledge and to challenge existing medical authority whilst blurring the boundaries between the medical expert and the lay patient.

    “Vicari and Cappai (2016) show how social media allow patient organisations to 'crowdsource' experiential knowledge and to challenge existing medical authority whilst blurring the boundaries between the medical expert and the lay patient (Adams and de Bont, 2007;Barrett et al., 2016;Griffiths et al., 2012).”

    From The Cultivation of Digital Health Citizenship (2021) · cites this paper as Vicari and Cappai, 2016

    The Discussion and conclusion (page unavailable) says social-media mechanisms enable crowdsourced patient narratives and informational pathways in which experiential and scientific knowledge are equally valued. The Analysis says those pathways often privilege crowdsourced exchange over traditional scientific sources. The paper discusses challenges to medical authority and blurred lay–professional boundaries in its Health activism background, but does not show that social-media use itself produces those outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Dahlgren P. 2015, March 19 Political engagement: Charting rational and affective dimensions. Paper presented at Media Engagement International Conference, Lund
  2. Hans O. Carlos R. Murray E. Alejandro J. 2005 What is eHealth (3): A systematic review of published definitions Journal of Medical Internet Research 1 e1 15829471 PMC1550636
  3. Putnam R. D. 2000 Bowling alone New York Free Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vicari, S., & Cappai, F.
Affiliations
University of Leicester (GB)
Corresponding author
Vicari, Stefania
Venue
Information, Communication & Society
Published
2016-03-21
Volume
19
Issue
11
Pages
1653-1671
ISSN
  • 1369-118X (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-4462
OpenAlex
W2306940248
Cited by
86
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 6
FWCI
18.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Information Communication & Society (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (101785/Z/13/Z)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
Keywords
health activism, connective action, digital media, patient communities, crowdsourcing, experiential knowledge, health discourse

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review