同行研究人员在性化药物使用研究中的作用:益处与挑战。

IF 0.3 4区 医学 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Sante Publique Pub Date : 2024-01-01
Jorge Flores-Aranda, Jean-Sébastien Rousseau, Frankie B Lambert, Yannick Gaudette, Ida Giugnatico, Alexandre Brulotte, Joseph De Piano, Rossio Motta-Ochoa
{"title":"同行研究人员在性化药物使用研究中的作用:益处与挑战。","authors":"Jorge Flores-Aranda, Jean-Sébastien Rousseau, Frankie B Lambert, Yannick Gaudette, Ida Giugnatico, Alexandre Brulotte, Joseph De Piano, Rossio Motta-Ochoa","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Sexual and gender diverse individuals (SGDI) report higher usage of methamphetamine in sexual contexts. They face difficulties making sense of their experiences and being heard in services. Peer researchers (individuals with lived experience) were involved in a participatory study on methamphetamine consumption.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>1) To describe the opportunities and challenges of involving peer researchers in all stages of the research process; 2) To discuss how this involvement could address the epistemic injustice experienced by SGDI who practice chemsex.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>The peer-researcher participatory process was documented through a journal and meeting notes, which were analyzed through the framework of epistemic injustice. This notion refers to the mechanisms that prevent the knowledge of a person or group from being heard and considered legitimate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The contribution of peer researchers was highly valued and raised questions. Their in-depth knowledge facilitated data analysis and guided knowledge dissemination, promoting the transformation of current services. Their presence also helped to establish relationships of trust with the study population.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This connection with the study population can create expectations for services that may require a significant level of involvement from researchers. The team&#8217;s commitment to improving services can generate a mistaken perception of a lack of objectivity.</p>","PeriodicalId":49575,"journal":{"name":"Sante Publique","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Le rôle des pairs chercheurs dans la recherche sur la consommation sexualisée de substances : avantages et défis.\",\"authors\":\"Jorge Flores-Aranda, Jean-Sébastien Rousseau, Frankie B Lambert, Yannick Gaudette, Ida Giugnatico, Alexandre Brulotte, Joseph De Piano, Rossio Motta-Ochoa\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Sexual and gender diverse individuals (SGDI) report higher usage of methamphetamine in sexual contexts. They face difficulties making sense of their experiences and being heard in services. Peer researchers (individuals with lived experience) were involved in a participatory study on methamphetamine consumption.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>1) To describe the opportunities and challenges of involving peer researchers in all stages of the research process; 2) To discuss how this involvement could address the epistemic injustice experienced by SGDI who practice chemsex.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>The peer-researcher participatory process was documented through a journal and meeting notes, which were analyzed through the framework of epistemic injustice. This notion refers to the mechanisms that prevent the knowledge of a person or group from being heard and considered legitimate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The contribution of peer researchers was highly valued and raised questions. Their in-depth knowledge facilitated data analysis and guided knowledge dissemination, promoting the transformation of current services. Their presence also helped to establish relationships of trust with the study population.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This connection with the study population can create expectations for services that may require a significant level of involvement from researchers. The team&#8217;s commitment to improving services can generate a mistaken perception of a lack of objectivity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49575,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sante Publique\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sante Publique\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sante Publique","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:性取向和性别多样化者(SGDI)报告称,他们在性方面使用甲基苯丙胺的比例较高。他们难以理解自己的经历,也难以在服务中得到倾听。同伴研究者(有生活经验的人)参与了一项关于甲基苯丙胺消费的参与式研究:1) 描述同伴研究者参与研究过程各个阶段的机遇和挑战;2) 讨论同伴研究者的参与如何能够解决从事化学性性交易的 SGDI 在认识论上遇到的不公正问题:方法:通过日志和会议记录记录同伴研究者的参与过程,并通过认识论不公正的框架对其进行分析。这一概念指的是阻碍个人或群体的知识被倾听并被视为合法的机制:同行研究人员的贡献得到了高度评价,并提出了问题。他们的深入了解促进了数据分析,指导了知识传播,推动了当前服务的转型。他们的存在也有助于与研究对象建立信任关系:讨论:与研究对象的这种联系可能会使研究人员对服务产生期望,而这种期望可能需要研究人员的大量参与。团队对改善服务的承诺可能会让人误以为研究缺乏客观性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Le rôle des pairs chercheurs dans la recherche sur la consommation sexualisée de substances : avantages et défis.

Context: Sexual and gender diverse individuals (SGDI) report higher usage of methamphetamine in sexual contexts. They face difficulties making sense of their experiences and being heard in services. Peer researchers (individuals with lived experience) were involved in a participatory study on methamphetamine consumption.

Objectives: 1) To describe the opportunities and challenges of involving peer researchers in all stages of the research process; 2) To discuss how this involvement could address the epistemic injustice experienced by SGDI who practice chemsex.

Methodology: The peer-researcher participatory process was documented through a journal and meeting notes, which were analyzed through the framework of epistemic injustice. This notion refers to the mechanisms that prevent the knowledge of a person or group from being heard and considered legitimate.

Results: The contribution of peer researchers was highly valued and raised questions. Their in-depth knowledge facilitated data analysis and guided knowledge dissemination, promoting the transformation of current services. Their presence also helped to establish relationships of trust with the study population.

Discussion: This connection with the study population can create expectations for services that may require a significant level of involvement from researchers. The team’s commitment to improving services can generate a mistaken perception of a lack of objectivity.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Sante Publique
Sante Publique PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
33.30%
发文量
252
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: La revue Santé Publique s’adresse à l’ensemble des acteurs de santé publique qu’ils soient décideurs, professionnels de santé, acteurs de terrain, chercheurs, enseignants ou formateurs, etc. Elle publie des travaux de recherche, des évaluations, des analyses d’action, des réflexions sur des interventions de santé, des opinions, relevant des champs de la santé publique et de l’analyse des services de soins, des sciences sociales et de l’action sociale. Santé publique est une revue à comité de lecture, multidisciplinaire et généraliste, qui publie sur l’ensemble des thèmes de la santé publique parmi lesquels : accès et recours aux soins, déterminants et inégalités sociales de santé, prévention, éducation pour la santé, promotion de la santé, organisation des soins, environnement, formation des professionnels de santé, nutrition, politiques de santé, pratiques professionnelles, qualité des soins, gestion des risques sanitaires, représentation et santé perçue, santé scolaire, santé et travail, systèmes de santé, systèmes d’information, veille sanitaire, déterminants de la consommation de soins, organisation et économie des différents secteurs de production de soins (hôpital, médicament, etc.), évaluation médico-économique d’activités de soins ou de prévention et de programmes de santé, planification des ressources, politiques de régulation et de financement, etc
×
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