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 , Lana Earle-Bandaralage , Sarah Eley , Agustina Gancia , Stacy Larcombe , Shyamsundar Muthuralingam , Louise Townsin , Hannah Wardill , 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.
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.