Search

This paper begins with the common phrase 'good girl' as a lens through which to explore the insidious nature of patronising and paternalistic language on women's agency in obstetric care. Here we see how misogynistic language is both violence against women in its own right, and serves to create a context in which more extreme obstetric violence can be precipitated. Based on thematic analysis of discussion on Mumsnet, and on contributions to a research-focused Facebook group, this paper illustrates the complexity of recognising and refuting misogyny as a female patient as well as the damage that can occur from a cultural context in which this language is normalised. Here, words both boast a materiality through the environments they reify, and become transient and slippery, with semiotic uncertainty. • Use of misogynistic language in obstetric and fertility care is widespread. • This language may be difficult to identify and address. • Language that positions women as incompetent creates a context in which violence may occur during childbirth. • Experiences of obstetric violence are common even in the UK, amongst well-educated women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Interactions in the healthcare system today involve an important new set of actors: evaluative health platforms (EHPs). These platforms are not neutral intermediaries, but active moderators of how patients express opinions, choose providers, and consume health-related information. This paper adds to our understanding of the varied and evolving commercial interests of EHPs and the implications these have for patient voice. We analyze 71 platforms in the USA, UK, and Germany and identify five ideal types: subscribers, analyzers, advertisers, regulators, and scammers. Each platform type enacts a unique competitive strategy through an evaluative infrastructure which constrains but also generates possibilities for patient voice. Based on our typology, we develop three contributions. First, we nuance universalizing claims about the consequences of platform capitalism by specifying the diverse strategies underpinning competition between EHPs in different countries, and showing how each strategy leads evaluative infrastructures to develop in ways that impact patient voice. Second, we show how patients can navigate the challenges of a complex EHP space by exercising their ability to choose between platforms. Finally, we outline the conditions platforms need to fulfil to become empowering. Overall, this study highlights the varied and complex relationship between platform business models and user voice, which exists not only in healthcare, but also in many other fields. • Typology of evaluative health platforms (EHPs) in the US, the UK, and Germany. • EHP business models and content moderation techniques vary considerably. • EHPs have a wide range of implications for patient voice. • More transparency and competition can help platforms increase patient empowerment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]