CASS, ANU, ACT, Canberra, 0200, Australia.
University of East Anglia, Research Park Norwich, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK.
BMC Psychiatry. 2024 Jan 15;24(1):52. doi: 10.1186/s12888-023-05398-0.
This article begins by locating Patient and Public involvement ((PPI) historically and argues that 'mental health' was a special case. This movement held promise for service users in repositioning them as researchers as opposed to 'subjects'. We argue, however, that ultimately it failed and was reduced to involved publics 'tinkering at the edges'. In respect to this we reference institutions, hierarchies, organisations and the overall political climate. Ultimately, however, it failed at the level of knowledge itself in that t he underlying assumptions of conventional researchers, their aims and goals, clashed with those of the assumptions and aims of survivors. However, we argue that all is not lost, the mainstream itself is imploding and beneath the surface forms of distinctly survivor-led knowledge are emerging.
本文首先从历史上定位患者和公众参与（PPI），并认为“心理健康”是一个特殊情况。这一运动有望将服务使用者重新定位为研究人员，而不是“对象”。然而，我们认为，最终它失败了，沦为了参与公众的“修修补补”。在这方面，我们参考了机构、等级制度、组织和整体政治氛围。然而，最终它在知识本身的层面上失败了，因为传统研究人员的基本假设、他们的目标和目的，与幸存者的假设和目标发生了冲突。然而，我们认为，一切都没有失去，主流本身正在内爆，在表面之下，出现了明显由幸存者主导的知识形式。
