协商进度、重点和身份:病人/公众参与姑息关怀研究。

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Sociology of health & illness Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-08 DOI:10.1111/1467-9566.13785
Liz Forbat, Aisha Macgregor, Talitha Brown, Brendan McCormack, Karen Spilsbury, Alasdair Rutherford, Barbara Hanratty, Jo Hockley, Maisie McKenzie, Irene Soulsby, Margaret Ogden
{"title":"协商进度、重点和身份:病人/公众参与姑息关怀研究。","authors":"Liz Forbat, Aisha Macgregor, Talitha Brown, Brendan McCormack, Karen Spilsbury, Alasdair Rutherford, Barbara Hanratty, Jo Hockley, Maisie McKenzie, Irene Soulsby, Margaret Ogden","doi":"10.1111/1467-9566.13785","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) is an increasingly important component of research conduct to enhance processes and potential for impact, yet is rarely critically interrogated. This paper draws on Foucauldian analysis to highlight the disciplinary powers and tensions arising in PPIE. The paper draws on a nested evaluation interview study with three PPIE members and eight academics, who had been involved in an implementation science study focused on palliative care. PPIE members were involved in the whole study and are co-authors of this article. Through shared values and commitments to the study, a team culture of equality was developed. Yet while power was dispersed and taken-up by all team members, in so doing a self-governance approach within the team was developed. The pace and focus of discussions was at times more subjugating than co-production. Identities and positions were porous; the simplistic division of 'academic' and 'PPIE' did not stand up to scrutiny, with an increasing blurring of boundaries as people's experiences and insights changed over time. Continual, subtle, negotiations of roles, inputs and identities were manifest throughout the project. PPIE in research involves subtle, complex and ongoing disciplinary practices enacted by all members of the team.</p>","PeriodicalId":21685,"journal":{"name":"Sociology of health & illness","volume":" ","pages":"1327-1344"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Negotiating pace, focus and identities: Patient/public involvement/engagement in a palliative care study.\",\"authors\":\"Liz Forbat, Aisha Macgregor, Talitha Brown, Brendan McCormack, Karen Spilsbury, Alasdair Rutherford, Barbara Hanratty, Jo Hockley, Maisie McKenzie, Irene Soulsby, Margaret Ogden\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1467-9566.13785\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) is an increasingly important component of research conduct to enhance processes and potential for impact, yet is rarely critically interrogated. This paper draws on Foucauldian analysis to highlight the disciplinary powers and tensions arising in PPIE. The paper draws on a nested evaluation interview study with three PPIE members and eight academics, who had been involved in an implementation science study focused on palliative care. PPIE members were involved in the whole study and are co-authors of this article. Through shared values and commitments to the study, a team culture of equality was developed. Yet while power was dispersed and taken-up by all team members, in so doing a self-governance approach within the team was developed. The pace and focus of discussions was at times more subjugating than co-production. Identities and positions were porous; the simplistic division of 'academic' and 'PPIE' did not stand up to scrutiny, with an increasing blurring of boundaries as people's experiences and insights changed over time. Continual, subtle, negotiations of roles, inputs and identities were manifest throughout the project. PPIE in research involves subtle, complex and ongoing disciplinary practices enacted by all members of the team.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21685,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sociology of health & illness\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1327-1344\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sociology of health & illness\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.13785\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/8 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociology of health & illness","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.13785","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

患者与公众参与(PPIE)是研究工作中日益重要的组成部分,它可以增强研究进程和影响潜力,但却很少受到批判性的审视。本文借鉴福柯分析法,强调了PPIE中产生的学科权力和紧张关系。本文借鉴了一项嵌套评估访谈研究,访谈对象是参与姑息关怀实施科学研究的三名PPIE成员和八名学者。PPIE成员参与了整个研究,是本文的共同作者。通过共同的价值观和对研究的承诺,形成了一种平等的团队文化。然而,在权力分散并由所有团队成员掌握的同时,团队内部也形成了一种自治方式。讨论的节奏和重点有时与其说是共同生产,不如说是征服。身份和立场是多变的;"学术 "和 "PPIE "的简单划分经不起推敲,随着时间的推移,人们的经验和见解也在发生变化,界限也越来越模糊。在整个项目中,对角色、投入和身份的持续、微妙的协商显而易见。研究中的 PPIE 涉及到团队所有成员微妙、复杂和持续的学科实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Negotiating pace, focus and identities: Patient/public involvement/engagement in a palliative care study.

Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) is an increasingly important component of research conduct to enhance processes and potential for impact, yet is rarely critically interrogated. This paper draws on Foucauldian analysis to highlight the disciplinary powers and tensions arising in PPIE. The paper draws on a nested evaluation interview study with three PPIE members and eight academics, who had been involved in an implementation science study focused on palliative care. PPIE members were involved in the whole study and are co-authors of this article. Through shared values and commitments to the study, a team culture of equality was developed. Yet while power was dispersed and taken-up by all team members, in so doing a self-governance approach within the team was developed. The pace and focus of discussions was at times more subjugating than co-production. Identities and positions were porous; the simplistic division of 'academic' and 'PPIE' did not stand up to scrutiny, with an increasing blurring of boundaries as people's experiences and insights changed over time. Continual, subtle, negotiations of roles, inputs and identities were manifest throughout the project. PPIE in research involves subtle, complex and ongoing disciplinary practices enacted by all members of the team.

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
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
6.90%
发文量
156
期刊介绍: Sociology of Health & Illness is an international journal which publishes sociological articles on all aspects of health, illness, medicine and health care. We welcome empirical and theoretical contributions in this field.
×
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