‘Suck it up, keep going’? A critical disabilities analysis with strategic recommendations for supporting the wellbeing among people living with long COVID
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long COVID has been described as a ‘mass disabling event’, affecting over 400 million people worldwide. In the context of evolving medical knowledge around this novel condition, there is little research on how the broader determinants of health might interact with symptoms to influence the lived experience of people with Long COVID. This paper contributes a critical disability studies perspective to explore the structural determinants of well-being for people with Long COVID. Drawing on interviews with 30 people with Long COVID and eight caregivers, we conducted a qualitative study (March-July 2023), applying reflexive thematic analysis to identify themes related to cultural norms/values and public policies. The results illustrate how social understanding of disability contributes to feelings of poor self-worth, increased isolation, and decreased motivation to access disability support. Disability support and return-to-work programs depict the dominant influence of ableist policies and their negative impact on people with Long COVID’s wellbeing. In particular, respondents described how gaslighting occurs within social policy and work, as well as medical and environmental factors. Multilevel interventions are needed to strengthen health and social policies, engage patients and caregivers, and address health and social disparities associated with Long COVID.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".