Making sense of ‘side effects’: Counterpublic health in the era of direct-acting antivirals

Abstract Direct-Acting Antiviral (DAA) treatments for hepatitis C have been widely promoted by health promotion professionals and medical clinicians as being ‘side-effect free’. In this paper, we draw on data that troubles this approach. We used a mixed method design to collect data from people who inject drugs, and who were DAA treatment naive, in New South Wales, Australia. We describe knowledge about and perceptions of DAA treatment. We found that concerns about side effects were commonplace – for example, one-third (37%) of participants who had not taken up treatment worried “a lot” about ‘side effects’ – and that these concerns were underpinned by a general distrust and suspicion of medical institutions and their technologies, including widespread negative associations linked to interferon treatment. In trying to make sense of this, we draw on the concept of counterpublic health and its recognition that the everyday health needs, knowledges and aspirations of subordinated citizens frequently contradict the normative frameworks governing public health interventions. We suggest that failing to engage with concerns about ‘side effects’ could hinder elimination efforts. Our analysis suggests that addressing the issue of ‘side effects’ within the ‘public’ discourse of DAAs will not dampen or damage elimination efforts, as some might fear, but rather it will legitimate the concerns of people who inject, decrease their suspicion of medical interventions, and better support the uptake of DAA treatments.