Exploring Patient Organization Involvement in Stem Cell Research: Insights from the Lifeworld.

IF 2.1 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pub Date : 2026-09-01 Epub Date: 2026-03-17 DOI:10.1007/s11673-025-10516-6
Edilene Lopes, Rachel Ankeny, Dan Santos, Mengqi Hu, Tess Whitton, Michail Ivanov, Joan Leach, Dianne Nicol, Christine Wells
{"title":"Exploring Patient Organization Involvement in Stem Cell Research: Insights from the Lifeworld.","authors":"Edilene Lopes, Rachel Ankeny, Dan Santos, Mengqi Hu, Tess Whitton, Michail Ivanov, Joan Leach, Dianne Nicol, Christine Wells","doi":"10.1007/s11673-025-10516-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article examines the role of patient organizations as mediators between patients and researchers in stem cell research in Australia. We conducted semi-structured interviews with stem cell researchers and patient organization representatives as part of a broader project to deepen public understanding and foster more robust scientific practices in stem cell-based research and therapies. We used Habermas's Theory of Communicative Action as our theoretical framework to explore the relationships between patient organizations and researchers. Using this framework allowed the identification of two different ways of conceptualizing health and illness-one based on patients' experiences, which we call \"the lifeworld,\" and another grounded on researchers', health professionals', and policymakers' professional perspectives, which we call \"the rational system.\" We found that the different conceptualizations identified influenced the interactions between patients and researchers (and other professionals involved in the healthcare system). Patient organizations, then, act as articulators of patients' viewpoints in this scenario, which can have advantages and disadvantages. We also found that researchers need to develop less transactional forms of communication with these organizations and that policymakers and regulators could benefit from developing guidelines to encourage researchers to use diverse strategies to engage more meaningfully with patients at individual and organizational levels.</p>","PeriodicalId":50252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":"699-713"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13645905/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-025-10516-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article examines the role of patient organizations as mediators between patients and researchers in stem cell research in Australia. We conducted semi-structured interviews with stem cell researchers and patient organization representatives as part of a broader project to deepen public understanding and foster more robust scientific practices in stem cell-based research and therapies. We used Habermas's Theory of Communicative Action as our theoretical framework to explore the relationships between patient organizations and researchers. Using this framework allowed the identification of two different ways of conceptualizing health and illness-one based on patients' experiences, which we call "the lifeworld," and another grounded on researchers', health professionals', and policymakers' professional perspectives, which we call "the rational system." We found that the different conceptualizations identified influenced the interactions between patients and researchers (and other professionals involved in the healthcare system). Patient organizations, then, act as articulators of patients' viewpoints in this scenario, which can have advantages and disadvantages. We also found that researchers need to develop less transactional forms of communication with these organizations and that policymakers and regulators could benefit from developing guidelines to encourage researchers to use diverse strategies to engage more meaningfully with patients at individual and organizational levels.

探索患者组织参与干细胞研究:来自生活世界的见解。
本文探讨了患者组织在澳大利亚干细胞研究中作为患者和研究人员之间的中介的作用。我们对干细胞研究人员和患者组织代表进行了半结构化访谈,这是一个更广泛的项目的一部分,旨在加深公众对干细胞研究和治疗的理解,促进更强大的科学实践。我们以哈贝马斯的交往行为理论为理论框架,探讨患者组织与研究者之间的关系。使用这个框架,我们可以识别出两种不同的方式来概念化健康和疾病——一种基于患者的经验,我们称之为“生活世界”,另一种基于研究人员、卫生专业人员和政策制定者的专业观点,我们称之为“理性体系”。我们发现,确定的不同概念影响了患者和研究人员(以及参与医疗保健系统的其他专业人员)之间的互动。因此,在这种情况下,患者组织充当患者观点的表达者,这可能有优点也有缺点。我们还发现,研究人员需要与这些组织建立较少交易形式的沟通,政策制定者和监管机构可以从制定指导方针中受益,以鼓励研究人员使用不同的策略,在个人和组织层面上与患者进行更有意义的接触。
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
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
67
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The JBI welcomes both reports of empirical research and articles that increase theoretical understanding of medicine and health care, the health professions and the biological sciences. The JBI is also open to critical reflections on medicine and conventional bioethics, the nature of health, illness and disability, the sources of ethics, the nature of ethical communities, and possible implications of new developments in science and technology for social and cultural life and human identity. We welcome contributions from perspectives that are less commonly published in existing journals in the field and reports of empirical research studies using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The JBI accepts contributions from authors working in or across disciplines including – but not limited to – the following: -philosophy- bioethics- economics- social theory- law- public health and epidemiology- anthropology- psychology- feminism- gay and lesbian studies- linguistics and discourse analysis- cultural studies- disability studies- history- literature and literary studies- environmental sciences- theology and religious studies
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书