Discipline of Speech and Language Therapy, School of Health Sciences, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland.
Department of Language and Communication, University of Southern Denmark, Odense M, Denmark.
Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2022 Oct;24(5):515-526. doi: 10.1080/17549507.2022.2075465. Epub 2022 Jun 28.
: International health and social care policy increasingly draws on stakeholder experiences and opinions. The distinctions between various approaches to researching "insider" perspectives are contentious. This article explores features (e.g. philosophy, ethics, and power dynamics) of qualitative approaches and public and patient involvement (PPI) in communication disorder research and explicates the blurred boundaries between them.: We use two case studies involving PPI contributors with aphasia - an Irish mixed methodologies study and a Danish qualitative study - to illustrate PPI in research and thus demonstrate how researchers can bridge the gap between theoretical considerations and research implementation: There are important distinctions between PPI in research and qualitative approaches (e.g. origins, roles, and reimbursement) and many blurred boundaries (e.g. inclusion, openness to mutual learning and "insider" perspectives). A key difference is that PPI contributors take an active role at project level and more flexibility in roles is required in PPI research. These flexible and varied roles reflect the shared decision-making powers between lay and professional researchers.: PPI can add innovation to qualitative and mixed methods communication disorder research as illustrated in both case studies. However, researchers wishing to include PPI must embrace and respond to the evolving and flexible nature of PPI relationships and processes. Flexibility, negotiation and continuous reflection on methodological approaches, power dynamics, roles and co-created knowledge will impact and transform the field of research in communication disorders.
: 国际卫生和社会保健政策越来越多地借鉴利益相关者的经验和意见。研究“内部人士”观点的各种方法之间的区别存在争议。本文探讨了定性方法的特点（如哲学、伦理和权力动态）以及在沟通障碍研究中的公众和患者参与（PPI），并阐明了它们之间的界限模糊。: 我们使用了两个涉及失语症患者 PPI 贡献者的案例研究——一个是爱尔兰的混合方法研究，另一个是丹麦的定性研究——来说明研究中的 PPI，从而展示了研究人员如何弥合理论考虑和研究实施之间的差距：PPI 在研究中和定性方法之间存在重要区别（例如，起源、角色和报销），并且有许多界限模糊（例如，包容性、对相互学习和“内部人士”观点的开放性）。一个关键区别是，PPI 贡献者在项目层面上扮演积极的角色，并且在 PPI 研究中需要更多的角色灵活性。这些灵活多样的角色反映了外行和专业研究人员之间共享的决策权力。: PPI 可以为定性和混合方法沟通障碍研究带来创新，正如两个案例研究所示。然而，希望纳入 PPI 的研究人员必须接受并应对 PPI 关系和流程的不断发展和灵活性质。灵活性、协商和对方法论方法、权力动态、角色和共同创造的知识的持续反思将影响和改变沟通障碍研究领域。
