Smyth, Nancy J, Blitshteyn, Svetlana · International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025 · DOI
This study examines how healthcare providers talk to patients with Long COVID and ME/CFS, and how certain words and phrases can hurt patients emotionally and damage the doctor-patient relationship. The authors identified problematic language patterns used by doctors and suggest better ways to communicate with compassion and respect. The goal is to help healthcare providers have more supportive conversations with patients who have these complex, poorly understood illnesses.
ME/CFS and Long COVID patients frequently report being disbelieved, dismissed, and gaslighted by healthcare providers, which compounds suffering and delays appropriate care. This study provides practical, evidence-based communication guidance that can help clinicians recognize and change harmful language patterns, potentially improving the clinical experience and therapeutic relationship for vulnerable patient populations. Better clinician-patient communication may reduce iatrogenic harm and support more compassionate, effective care delivery.
This guideline does not provide empirical data proving that specific language changes causally improve patient outcomes, symptom severity, or clinical recovery rates. It does not establish biomarkers or diagnostic criteria for ME/CFS or Long COVID, nor does it demonstrate that problematic language is the primary barrier to care quality. The study focuses on communication best practices rather than testing their direct impact through randomized controlled trials.
About the PEM badge: “PEM required” means post-exertional malaise was an explicit required diagnostic criterion for participant inclusion in this study — not that PEM was studied, observed, or discussed. Studies using criteria that do not require PEM (e.g. Fukuda, Oxford) are tagged “PEM not required”. How the atlas works →
Contribute
Private, reviewed by a human. Not a public comment thread.