Credit where it’s due: Recognising lived experience in research authorship

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Elizabeth Lynch , Lana Earle-Bandaralage , Sarah Eley , Agustina Gancia , Stacy Larcombe , Shyamsundar Muthuralingam , Louise Townsin , Hannah Wardill , Nadia Corsini
{"title":"Credit where it’s due: Recognising lived experience in research authorship","authors":"Elizabeth Lynch ,&nbsp;Lana Earle-Bandaralage ,&nbsp;Sarah Eley ,&nbsp;Agustina Gancia ,&nbsp;Stacy Larcombe ,&nbsp;Shyamsundar Muthuralingam ,&nbsp;Louise Townsin ,&nbsp;Hannah Wardill ,&nbsp;Nadia Corsini","doi":"10.1016/j.pec.2024.108472","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To identify current practice and preferences about whether and how to acknowledge authors’ lived experience when authors contribute their lived experience expertise to research outputs in the context of health and healthcare.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Surveys to people with lived experience and to academic researchers who had conducted research together (via consultation, partnership or lived-experience-led).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Responses from 40 academic researchers and 36 lived experience contributors were included. Most respondents (n = 23 lived experience, 63.9 %; n = 28 academic, 70 %) reported an author’s lived experience should be publicly recognised. Approximately half recommended that affiliations should highlight authors’ lived experiences (n = 24 lived experience, 66.7 %; n = 19 academic, 47.5 %).</div><div>When people with lived experience had co-authored outputs, their lived experience was not always acknowledged (n = 13/20, 65 % lived experience; n = 17/32 academic, 53.1 %).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Most respondents reported that a person’s lived experience should be recognised on health-related research outputs, but this did not consistently occur in practice.</div></div><div><h3>Practice Implications</h3><div>Teams planning health-related research outputs should seek input from relevant authors about their preferred practices and terms for recognising their lived experience. Unless preferred otherwise, we recommend that the lived experiences of relevant authors are acknowledged within the output and that lived experiences are presented in affiliations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49714,"journal":{"name":"Patient Education and Counseling","volume":"130 ","pages":"Article 108472"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient Education and Counseling","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0738399124003392","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To identify current practice and preferences about whether and how to acknowledge authors’ lived experience when authors contribute their lived experience expertise to research outputs in the context of health and healthcare.

Methods

Surveys to people with lived experience and to academic researchers who had conducted research together (via consultation, partnership or lived-experience-led).

Results

Responses from 40 academic researchers and 36 lived experience contributors were included. Most respondents (n = 23 lived experience, 63.9 %; n = 28 academic, 70 %) reported an author’s lived experience should be publicly recognised. Approximately half recommended that affiliations should highlight authors’ lived experiences (n = 24 lived experience, 66.7 %; n = 19 academic, 47.5 %).
When people with lived experience had co-authored outputs, their lived experience was not always acknowledged (n = 13/20, 65 % lived experience; n = 17/32 academic, 53.1 %).

Conclusion

Most respondents reported that a person’s lived experience should be recognised on health-related research outputs, but this did not consistently occur in practice.

Practice Implications

Teams planning health-related research outputs should seek input from relevant authors about their preferred practices and terms for recognising their lived experience. Unless preferred otherwise, we recommend that the lived experiences of relevant authors are acknowledged within the output and that lived experiences are presented in affiliations.
归功于它应得的:认可研究作者的生活经历。
目的当作者在健康和医疗保健领域的研究成果中贡献自己的生活经验专业知识时,确定是否以及如何承认作者的生活经验的现行做法和偏好:方法:对有生活经验的人和共同开展研究的学术研究人员(通过咨询、合作或生活经验主导)进行调查:结果:40 位学术研究人员和 36 位生活体验贡献者的回复被纳入其中。大多数受访者(n = 23 位生活体验者,占 63.9%;n = 28 位学术研究者,占 70%)表示,应公开承认作者的生活体验。大约一半的受访者建议,作者所属单位应突出作者的生活经历(n = 24 位生活经历作者,66.7%;n = 19 位学术作者,47.5%)。当有生活经历的人共同撰写论文时,他们的生活经历并不总是得到认可(n = 13/20,65% 为生活经历;n = 17/32 为学术经历,53.1%):大多数受访者表示,与健康相关的研究成果应承认个人的生活经历,但这在实践中并不常见:实践意义:规划健康相关研究成果的团队应向相关作者征求意见,了解他们对认可其生活经历的做法和术语的偏好。除非另有偏好,我们建议在成果中承认相关作者的生活经历,并在隶属关系中介绍生活经历。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Patient Education and Counseling
Patient Education and Counseling 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
11.40%
发文量
384
审稿时长
46 days
期刊介绍: Patient Education and Counseling is an interdisciplinary, international journal for patient education and health promotion researchers, managers and clinicians. The journal seeks to explore and elucidate the educational, counseling and communication models in health care. Its aim is to provide a forum for fundamental as well as applied research, and to promote the study of organizational issues involved with the delivery of patient education, counseling, health promotion services and training models in improving communication between providers and patients.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信