Suppr超能文献

象征资本在健康研究中患者和公众参与的力量。

The power of symbolic capital in patient and public involvement in health research.

机构信息

Health Experiences Research Group, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK.

出版信息

Health Expect. 2017 Oct;20(5):836-844. doi: 10.1111/hex.12519. Epub 2016 Nov 24.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Policy-makers and health research funders increasingly require researchers to demonstrate that they have involved patients in the design and conduct of research. However, the extent to which patients and public have the power to get involved on an equal footing is dependent on their economic, cultural, social and symbolic capital.

OBJECTIVE

To explore power relations in patient and public involvement (PPI) in research, particularly how patients may wield symbolic capital to develop a more equal relationship.

METHODS

Narrative interviews with a maximum variation sample of 38 people involved as patients, carers or public in health research, analysed thematically.

FINDINGS

Symbolic capital may be demonstrated in a range of ways (sometimes alongside or in the absence of other forms of capital): illness experience, technical illness knowledge and the challenging outsider. Symbolic capital is unstable and dependent on others for recognition and legitimacy. Nonetheless, participants identify a gradual shift in power relations over time.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Research into PPI has been conceptually and theoretically poor, limiting our understanding of its mechanisms and wider contextual elements. Our findings demonstrate the importance of reflecting on the forms of power and capital wielded by the health research community, and of acknowledging the way in which PPI is challenging the status quo. As one of the first papers to conceptualize how different forms of symbolic capital operate and their critical role in challenging the balance of power, our findings may help researchers better plan their PPI activities and reflect on their own power.

摘要

背景

政策制定者和卫生研究资助者越来越要求研究人员证明他们已经让患者参与研究的设计和实施。然而,患者和公众是否有平等参与的权力取决于他们的经济、文化、社会和象征资本。

目的

探讨患者和公众参与(PPI)研究中的权力关系,特别是患者如何运用象征资本来发展更平等的关系。

方法

对 38 名以患者、照顾者或公众身份参与卫生研究的人员进行了最大变异样本的叙事式访谈,并进行了主题分析。

发现

象征资本可以通过多种方式表现出来(有时与其他形式的资本并存或缺乏):疾病经历、技术疾病知识和具有挑战性的局外人。象征资本是不稳定的,依赖于他人的认可和合法性。尽管如此,参与者还是发现了权力关系随时间的推移逐渐发生了变化。

讨论和结论

对 PPI 的研究在概念和理论上都很薄弱,限制了我们对其机制和更广泛的背景因素的理解。我们的研究结果表明,反思卫生研究界行使的权力和资本形式,以及承认 PPI 正在挑战现状的重要性。作为首批概念化不同形式的象征资本如何运作及其在挑战权力平衡方面的关键作用的论文之一,我们的研究结果可能有助于研究人员更好地规划他们的 PPI 活动,并反思自己的权力。

相似文献

1
The power of symbolic capital in patient and public involvement in health research.
Health Expect. 2017 Oct;20(5):836-844. doi: 10.1111/hex.12519. Epub 2016 Nov 24.
2
Evaluating patient and public involvement in health research: from theoretical model to practical workshop.
Health Expect. 2017 Oct;20(5):826-835. doi: 10.1111/hex.12486. Epub 2017 Jun 30.
8
Evaluation of a national training programme to support engagement in mental health services: Learning enablers and learning gains.
J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2019 Nov;26(9-10):323-336. doi: 10.1111/jpm.12535. Epub 2019 Oct 7.
10
Reciprocal relationships and the importance of feedback in patient and public involvement: A mixed methods study.
Health Expect. 2018 Oct;21(5):899-908. doi: 10.1111/hex.12684. Epub 2018 Apr 14.

引用本文的文献

1
The ultimate power play in research - partnering with patients, partnering with power.
Res Involv Engagem. 2025 Jun 17;11(1):65. doi: 10.1186/s40900-025-00745-9.
2
"Interest-holders": A new term to replace "stakeholders" in the context of health research and policy.
Cochrane Evid Synth Methods. 2024 Oct 29;2(11):e70007. doi: 10.1002/cesm.70007. eCollection 2024 Nov.
5
Establishing patient partners' roles on research teams: a scoping review.
Res Involv Engagem. 2024 Dec 18;10(1):129. doi: 10.1186/s40900-024-00664-1.
7
Commercial influences on patient and public involvement: a renewed call for research and action.
Health Promot Int. 2024 Dec 1;39(6). doi: 10.1093/heapro/daae188.

本文引用的文献

1
Addressing Deficits and Injustices: The Potential Epistemic Contributions of Patients to Research.
Health Care Anal. 2017 Dec;25(4):386-403. doi: 10.1007/s10728-016-0323-5.
5
Health care: Bring on the evidence.
Nature. 2013 Sep 12;501(7466):160-1. doi: 10.1038/501160a.
7
There is no paradox with PPI in research.
J Med Ethics. 2013 Mar;39(3):186-7. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2012-100512. Epub 2013 Jan 2.
8
Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review.
Health Expect. 2014 Oct;17(5):637-50. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x. Epub 2012 Jul 19.
9
Theoretical directions for an emancipatory concept of patient and public involvement.
Health (London). 2012 Sep;16(5):531-47. doi: 10.1177/1363459312438563. Epub 2012 Apr 25.
10
PPI, paradoxes and Plato: who's sailing the ship?
J Med Ethics. 2013 Mar;39(3):181-5. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2011-100150. Epub 2012 Jan 20.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验