Hutchison Katrina, Rogers Wendy, Entwistle Vikki A
School of Philosophical, Historical and International Studies, Monash University, Menzies Building, 20 Chancellors Walk, Wellington Road, Clayton, VIC, 3800, Australia.
Department of Philosophy and Department of Clinical Medicine, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia.
Health Care Anal. 2017 Dec;25(4):386-403. doi: 10.1007/s10728-016-0323-5.
Patient or public involvement (PPI) in health research is increasingly expected as a matter of policy. In theory, PPI can contribute both to the epistemic aims intrinsic to research (generating knowledge), and to extrinsically valued features of research such as social inclusion and transparency. In practice, the aims of PPI have not always been clear, although there has been a tendency to encourage the involvement of so-called ordinary people who are regarded as representative of an assumed patient perspective. In this paper we focus on the epistemic potential of PPI, using theoretical work in epistemology to develop a nuanced account of patients' experiential knowledge and how this might contribute directly to conceptual development, hypothesis generation and data interpretation. We also consider how some features of health research pose barriers to this kind of epistemic contribution. Drawing on Miranda Fricker's idea of testimonial injustice, we explore how disciplinary indicators of credibility in clinical and academic health research contexts might be wrongly applied to those involved in PPI, undermining their potential to contribute. Finally we argue for a range of strategies to maximize opportunities for patients to engage with research teams and make epistemologically significant contributions to research.
作为一项政策问题,患者或公众参与(PPI)在健康研究中越来越受到期待。理论上,PPI既能有助于实现研究内在的认知目标(生成知识),也能有助于实现研究具有外在价值的特征,如社会包容和透明度。实际上,PPI的目标并不总是清晰的,尽管存在一种倾向,即鼓励所谓代表假定患者视角的普通人参与。在本文中,我们聚焦于PPI的认知潜力,利用认识论的理论工作,对患者的经验知识进行细致入微的阐述,以及这如何可能直接有助于概念发展、假设生成和数据解释。我们还考虑健康研究的一些特征如何对这种认知贡献构成障碍。借鉴米兰达·弗里克的证言不公正概念,我们探讨临床和学术健康研究背景下的可信度学科指标可能如何被错误地应用于参与PPI的人员,从而削弱他们做出贡献的潜力。最后,我们主张采取一系列策略,以最大限度地增加患者与研究团队互动的机会,并在认识论上对研究做出重大贡献。