Cet article propose une revue de littérature sélective des travaux de sciences sociales consacrés à la maladie de Lyme, en mobilisant également d'autres travaux menés sur des risques sanitaires similaires. Ces travaux montrent que la borréliose de Lyme constitue un exemple « archétypal » des risques infectieux contemporains. C'est tout d'abord un risque « invisible », dont l'émergence résulte des interactions entre activités humaines, écosystèmes et pathogènes, et pour lequel les autorités de santé privilégient la prévention individuelle. Ce choix implique de mieux connaître les perceptions profanes : distinctes de celles des experts, ces perceptions sont socialement différenciées, sujettes au « biais d'optimisme » et influencées par les récits personnels. De plus, il ne faut pas oublier les dilemmes auxquels sont confrontés les profanes qui envisagent une conduite préventive. Enfin, la controverse sur le « Lyme chronique » illustre bien le désenchantement contemporain à l'égard de la science, le nivellement des positions relatives de l'expert et du profane, et l'immixtion progressive du second sur le terrain du premier. 2 AbstactThis article is a selective literature review of social science works published on Lyme disease, that draws on other articles published on similar health hazards. These works present Lyme borreliosis as an "archetypal" example of modern infectious risks. It is an "invisible" risk resulting from interactions between human activities, ecosystems, and pathogens. To tackle this risk, health authorities promote individual-based prevention measures. Perceptions of the general population should thus be better understood: different from the perceptions of experts, the general population's perceptions are socially differentiated, inclined to an "optimism bias", and influenced by personal stories. One should also not forget the dilemmas faced by the general population when contemplating preventive behavior. The "chronic Lyme disease" controversy illustrates the modern disappointment in science, the leveling of the general population's and experts' relative opinions, and the progressive interference of the former with expert matters.

A second epidemic has appeared among some patients infected with COVID-19 persistent disorders, commonly called "long COVID syndrome." Our study sought to identify the proportion of French GPs dealing with patients with potential long COVID syndrome and their symptoms in an online cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey among a representative national panel of GPs. The majority (53.8%) reported at least 1 patient with COVID-19 and persistent symptoms, and 33% 2 or more such patients. Their most frequent symptoms were respiratory difficulties (60.6%), psychological distress (42.8%), and anosmia-dysgeusia (40.8%). Long COVID syndrome's recognition, management, and rehabilitation are priorities requiring effective coordination between primary and secondary care.

France has been at the epicenter of the worldwide debate about hydroxychloroquine, as the main advocacy for its use to treat COVID-19 comes from a research unit led by Didier Raoult in Marseille. Among a national panel of 2940 general practitioners, we found that physicians in the areas most strongly affected by the epidemic or closest to the epicenter of the controversy reported that the hydroxychloroquine debate had made it difficult for them to deal with patients' treatment requests. Their adherence to official recommendations was also lower. It will be necessary to examine the conditions producing so strong a conflict.

Background Media coverage of Lyme disease (LD) has led to an increase in consultations for presumed LD in Europe. However, LD is confirmed in only 10%–20% of patients, with a significant number remaining in a diagnostic dead-end. Objectives To reach a deeper understanding of how patients themselves contribute to the diagnostic process. To describe the genesis of the LD hypothesis in care pathways. Methods In 2019, 30 patients from a prospective cohort consulting in the infectious diseases department at University Hospital in Marseille for presumed LD were recruited for semistructured interviews. The inclusion criteria were: suffering from subjective symptoms for 6 months, no clinical or paraclinical argument suggesting current LD. The patients’ medical trajectories were collected using a biographical approach. Results The diagnosis of LD was primarily triggered by identification with personal testimonies found on the Internet. Most of patients were leading their own diagnostic investigation. The majority of participants were convinced they had LD despite the lack of medical evidence and the scepticism of their referring GP. Conclusion GPs should first systematically explore patients’ aetiologic representations in order to improve adherence to the diagnosis especially in the management of medically unexplained symptoms. Long COVID-19 syndrome challenge offers an opportunity to promote active patient involvement in diagnosis.