追求社会正义的参与式实践。

IF 0.7 4区 医学 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Erika Blacksher, Jonathan M Marron, Basel Tarab, Julius Yang
{"title":"追求社会正义的参与式实践。","authors":"Erika Blacksher, Jonathan M Marron, Basel Tarab, Julius Yang","doi":"10.1353/pbm.2025.a962017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The idea that people should have a voice in decisions that affect them is now widely accepted in the US health sector. Practices such as patient and family advisory boards, community-based participatory research, patient-centered research, and public deliberation are becoming commonplace. The appeal of public participation turns on a number of purported benefits, including the potential for more inclusive and transparent decision-making, equitable interventions and outcomes, and public trust in institutions. Considerable conceptual work has refined definitions and frameworks of participatory processes, and ample experimentation is underway. Yet participation remains an ambiguous concept and highly variable in practice. Drawing on the authors' collective experiences in life and work, this article clarifies what participatory processes are, describes how they might support varied goals of justice, and identifies opportunities and considerations for their use in health-care organizations. Although participatory processes alone cannot solve the erosion of trust in American health care or remedy marked US health inequities, they can be an important tool for health-care leaders who wish to work toward building fairer health systems, services, and outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":54627,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives in Biology and Medicine","volume":"68 2","pages":"174-193"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Participatory Practice in Pursuit of Social Justice.\",\"authors\":\"Erika Blacksher, Jonathan M Marron, Basel Tarab, Julius Yang\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/pbm.2025.a962017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The idea that people should have a voice in decisions that affect them is now widely accepted in the US health sector. Practices such as patient and family advisory boards, community-based participatory research, patient-centered research, and public deliberation are becoming commonplace. The appeal of public participation turns on a number of purported benefits, including the potential for more inclusive and transparent decision-making, equitable interventions and outcomes, and public trust in institutions. Considerable conceptual work has refined definitions and frameworks of participatory processes, and ample experimentation is underway. Yet participation remains an ambiguous concept and highly variable in practice. Drawing on the authors' collective experiences in life and work, this article clarifies what participatory processes are, describes how they might support varied goals of justice, and identifies opportunities and considerations for their use in health-care organizations. Although participatory processes alone cannot solve the erosion of trust in American health care or remedy marked US health inequities, they can be an important tool for health-care leaders who wish to work toward building fairer health systems, services, and outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54627,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perspectives in Biology and Medicine\",\"volume\":\"68 2\",\"pages\":\"174-193\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perspectives in Biology and Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2025.a962017\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives in Biology and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2025.a962017","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人们应该在影响他们的决策中有发言权的想法现在在美国卫生部门被广泛接受。病人和家属咨询委员会、以社区为基础的参与性研究、以病人为中心的研究以及公众审议等做法正在变得司空见惯。公众参与的吸引力带来了一些所谓的好处,包括可能实现更具包容性和透明度的决策、公平的干预和结果,以及公众对机构的信任。相当多的概念性工作已经完善了参与性进程的定义和框架,并且正在进行大量的实验。然而,参与仍然是一个模糊的概念,在实践中变化很大。根据作者在生活和工作中的集体经验,本文澄清了参与性进程是什么,描述了它们如何支持各种正义目标,并确定了在卫生保健组织中使用它们的机会和考虑因素。虽然参与式进程本身不能解决对美国医疗保健信任的侵蚀,也不能补救美国明显的卫生不公平现象,但对于希望努力建立更公平的卫生系统、服务和结果的卫生保健领导人来说,它们可以是一个重要的工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Participatory Practice in Pursuit of Social Justice.

The idea that people should have a voice in decisions that affect them is now widely accepted in the US health sector. Practices such as patient and family advisory boards, community-based participatory research, patient-centered research, and public deliberation are becoming commonplace. The appeal of public participation turns on a number of purported benefits, including the potential for more inclusive and transparent decision-making, equitable interventions and outcomes, and public trust in institutions. Considerable conceptual work has refined definitions and frameworks of participatory processes, and ample experimentation is underway. Yet participation remains an ambiguous concept and highly variable in practice. Drawing on the authors' collective experiences in life and work, this article clarifies what participatory processes are, describes how they might support varied goals of justice, and identifies opportunities and considerations for their use in health-care organizations. Although participatory processes alone cannot solve the erosion of trust in American health care or remedy marked US health inequities, they can be an important tool for health-care leaders who wish to work toward building fairer health systems, services, and outcomes.

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
Perspectives in Biology and Medicine
Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 医学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
20.00%
发文量
42
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, an interdisciplinary scholarly journal whose readers include biologists, physicians, students, and scholars, publishes essays that place important biological or medical subjects in broader scientific, social, or humanistic contexts. These essays span a wide range of subjects, from biomedical topics such as neurobiology, genetics, and evolution, to topics in ethics, history, philosophy, and medical education and practice. The editors encourage an informal style that has literary merit and that preserves the warmth, excitement, and color of the biological and medical sciences.
×
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