Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Health Care Analysis
Erschienen in: Health Care Analysis 4/2017

08.06.2016 | Original Article

Addressing Deficits and Injustices: The Potential Epistemic Contributions of Patients to Research

verfasst von: Katrina Hutchison, Wendy Rogers, Vikki A. Entwistle

Erschienen in: Health Care Analysis | Ausgabe 4/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

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.
Fußnoten
1
Systematic reviews of PPI show little or inconclusive evidence of the impact of PPI [3, 5, 6, 12, 43].
 
2
Elsewhere in the literature [50] authors distinguish ethical, political, and methodological aims. Of these, the first two fit into our ‘extrinsic’ category, whereas the third fits our ‘intrinsic’ category. Similar distinctions have been made by others, e.g. [9]. p. 2576; [49]. p. 2. It is worth noting that some benefits fall into a grey area. For example, involvement of patients in research design with the aim of improving the experience of the research participants by ensuring that their experience is pleasant, not inadvertently undermining of dignity, not too difficult etc. obviously has extrinsic value (i.e. ethical value of improving the experience of participants) but might also impact on comprehensiveness of data collection by increasing the number of respondents or completers, or improving the accuracy or richness of what they say. Conversely, there are moral reasons for promoting the epistemic benefits of PPI (for example doing so will lead to better utilization of health resources) and, as we will discuss, moral or ethical issues can arise in relation to the pursuit of PPI for epistemic aims.
 
3
Examples of such indirect benefits are reported in [24].
 
4
We recognize concerns expressed elsewhere that the term ‘patient’ can suggest sickness, passivity and disempowerment [5], although the term is claimed by some patient activists. We prefer ‘patient’ to ‘consumer’, which seems to refer more broadly to someone who is or might be a user of various health-related services, and is also suggestive of a particular kind of (economic) relationship (a point made by Angus Dawson [14]).
 
5
Groups with other perspectives (such as carers or clinicians) might also have unique forms of knowledge that could enhance the conceptualization, design and conduct of health research. Such questions lie beyond the scope of this paper, but some of our arguments, relevantly modified, might apply to other groups.
 
6
This terminology is courtesy of Donald Rumsfeld, who said: “There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.” As David Logan observes [27], Rumsfeld’s comments gesture towards an idea that is useful in the context of scientific knowledge.
 
7
Although we note that there is ongoing controversy over whether or not GWS is caused by an unknown medical problem (for example related to immune function) or whether it is psychogenic [22].
 
8
Gronseth [22] reports that some veterans wore pet flea collars to repel insects.
 
9
Chalmers does not reference this claim, therefore we are unable to provide further details.
 
10
For example, one biomedical scientist said: “Patients should not interfere in processes of which they know nothing about.” [9 p. 2576].
 
11
For example, Thompson et al. quote a patient involved as a research collaborator as saying: “You need to put brain into gear before opening mouth. You can’t just sit and waffle… [health researchers don’t] suffer fools gladly” [47 p. 613].
 
12
The Project LEAD® institute also provides intensive science course for breast cancer advocates in the USA [42].
 
13
Some forms of indirect epistemic contribution may benefit from those involved in a PPI capacity lacking technical knowledge or skills, for example the ability to identify that ordinary patients will not understand an information sheet due to jargon, or sensitivity to how those with limited understanding of research will react to various recruitment protocols.
 
14
The website of Harvard’s “Project Implicit” includes such resources for combating implicit bias generally, although the details are not specific to implicit biases in the health research context [36].
 
15
The possibility of using focus groups suggests a related but less direct way that patients’ first-hand knowledge of their health conditions might lead to epistemic breakthroughs. That is, when researchers make detailed use of qualitative studies of patient experiences. Careful analysis of already articulated patient experiential knowledge might stimulate new ideas when considered by researchers in light of their existing knowledge and research questions. Although not strictly a case of patient involvement, this is worth noting here because it seems a natural extension of our account of the role of experiential knowledge in achieving the epistemic goals of health research. Further examination of the potential of forms of qualitative research such as in-depth interviews and focus groups seems warranted. This point reinforces earlier recommendations along these lines [18].
 
Literatur
1.
2.
3.
Barber, R., Boote, J. D., Parry, G. D., Cooper, C. L., Yeeles, P., & Cook, S. (2012). Can the impact of public involvement on research be evaluated? A mixed methods study. Health Expectations, 15(3), 229–241.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Boghossian, P. A. (1989). Content and self-knowledge. Philosophical Topics, 17(1), 5–26.CrossRef
5.
Boote, J., Telford, R., & Cooper, C. (2002). Consumer involvement in health research: A review and research agenda. Health Policy, 61(2), 213–236.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Brett, J., Staniszewska, S., Mockford, C., Herron-Marx, S., Hughes, J., Tysall, C., & Suleman, R. (2014). Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: A systematic review. Health Expectations, 17(5), 637–650.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Brouwers, M., Kho, M. E., Browman, G. P., Cluzeau, F., Feder, G., Fervers, B., et al. (2010). Next steps consortium. AGREE II: Advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in healthcare. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 182(18), E839–E842.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
9.
Caron-Flinterman, J. F., Broerse, J. E., & Bunders, J. F. (2005). The experiential knowledge of patients: A new resource for biomedical research? Social Science and Medicine, 60(11), 2575–2584.CrossRefPubMed
10.
11.
Church, J., Saunders, D., Wanke, M., Pong, R., Spooner, C., & Dorgan, M. (2002). Citizen participation in health decision-making: Past experience and future prospects. Journal of Public Health Policy, 23(1), 12–32.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Conklin, A., Morris, Z., & Nolte, E. (2015). What is the evidence base for public involvement in health-care policy? Results of a systematic scoping review. Health Expectations, 18(2), 153–165.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Davies, G., & Burgess, J. (2004). Challenging the ‘view from nowhere’: Citizen reflections on specialist expertise in a deliberative process. Health and Place, 10(4), 349–361.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Dawson, A. (2010). The future of bioethics: Three dogmas and a cup of hemlock. Bioethics, 24(5), 218–225.CrossRefPubMed
15.
16.
Emmerova, M., & Jirava, F. (2004). Is gulf war syndrome really a mystery? Medicine, Conflict and Survival, 20(3), 209–217.CrossRef
17.
Entwistle, V. A. (2009). Public involvement in health service governance and development: Questions of potential for influence. Health Expectations, 12(1), 1–3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Entwistle, V. A., Renfrew, M. J., Yearley, S., Forrester, J., & Lamont, T. (1998). Lay perspectives: Advantages for health research. British Medical Journal, 316(7129), 463–466.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Entwistle, V. A., McCaughan, D., Watt, I. S., Birks, Y., Hall, J., Peat, M., et al. (2010). Speaking up about safety concerns: Multi-setting qualitative study of patients’ views and experiences. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 19(6), e33.PubMed
20.
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
21.
Gersons, B. P., & Carlier, I. V. (1992). Post-traumatic stress disorder: The history of a recent concept. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 161(6), 742–748.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Gronseth, G. S. (2005). Gulf war syndrome: A toxic exposure? A systematic review. Neurologic Clinics, 23(2), 523–540.CrossRefPubMed
23.
24.
Langston, A. L., McCallum, M., Campbell, M. K., Robertson, C., & Ralston, S. H. (2005). An integrated approach to consumer representation and involvement in a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Clinical Trials, 2(1), 80–87.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Levit, M. (1953). On the psychology and philosophy of concept formation. Educational Theory, 3(3), 193–207.CrossRef
26.
Lockey, R., Sitzia, J., Gillingham, T., Millyard, J., Miller, C., Ahmed, S., et al. (2004). Training for service user involvement in health and social care research: A study of training provision and participants’ experiences (The TRUE Project). Worthing: Worthing and Southlands Hospitals NHS Trust.
27.
Logan, D. C. (2009). Known knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknowns and the propagation of scientific enquiry. Journal of Experimental Botany, 60(3), 712–714.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Lupton, Deborah. (2003). Medicine as culture: Illness, disease and the body in western societies (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills: Sage.
29.
Malterud, K. (1999). The (gendered) construction of diagnosis interpretation of medical signs in women patients. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 20(3), 275–286.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Myers, C. S. (1916). Contributions to the study of shell shock. Being an account of certain disorders of speech, with special reference to their causation and their relation to malingering. The Lancet, 188(4854), 461–468.CrossRef
31.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231.CrossRef
32.
O’Donnell, M., & Entwistle, V. (2004). Consumer involvement in research projects: The activities of research funders. Health Policy, 69(2), 229–238.CrossRefPubMed
33.
O’Donnell, M., & Entwistle, V. (2004). Consumer involvement in decisions about what health related research is funded. Health Policy, 70(3), 281–290.CrossRefPubMed
34.
35.
Prior, L. (2003). Belief, knowledge and expertise: The emergence of the lay expert in medical sociology. Sociology of Health and Illness, 25(3), 41–57.CrossRefPubMed
36.
37.
Russell, B. (1912). Knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description. In The problems of philosophy (Chap. 5, pp. 25–32). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38.
Schwitzgebel, E. (2002). How well do we know our own conscious experience? The case of visual imagery. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 9(5–6), 35–53.
39.
Schwitzgebel, E. (2008). The unreliability of naive introspection. Philosophical Review, 117(2), 245–273.CrossRef
40.
Sellars, W. (1956). Empiricism and the philosophy of mind. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 1(19), 253–329.
41.
Spence, D. L. (2007). Ensuring respect for persons when recruiting junior enlisted personnel for research. Military Medicine, 172(3), 250–253.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Srivastava, R. (2013). Speaking up—When doctors navigate medical hierarchy. New England Journal of Medicine, 368(4), 302–305.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Staley, K., Buckland, S. A., Hayes, H., & Tarpey, M. (2014). ‘The missing links’: Understanding how context and mechanism influence the impact of public involvement in research. Health Expectations, 17(6), 755–764.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Subramaniam, M., Perrucci, R., & Whitlock, D. (2014). Intellectual closure: A theoretical framework linking knowledge, power, and the corporate university. Critical Sociology, 40(3), 411–430.CrossRef
45.
Tarn, M., Greenberg, N., & Wessely, S. (2008). Gulf War syndrome—has it gone away? Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 14(6), 414–422.CrossRef
46.
Terry, S. F., Terry, P. F., Rauen, K. A., Uitto, J., & Bercovitch, L. G. (2007). Advocacy groups as research organisations: The PXE international example. Nature Reviews Genetics, 8(2), 157–164.41.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Thompson, J., Bissell, P., Cooper, C., Armitage, C. J., & Barber, R. (2012). Credibility and the ‘professionalized’ lay expert: Reflections on the dilemmas and opportunities of public involvement in health research. Health, 16(6), 602–618.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Trimble, M. R. (1985). Post-traumatic stress disorder: History of a concept. In C. R. Figley (Ed.), Trauma and its wake (Vol. 1, pp. 5–14). New York: Brunner/Mazel.
49.
van de Bovenkamp, H. M., & Zuiderent-Jerak, T. (2015). An empirical study of patient participation in guideline development: Exploring the potential for articulating patient knowledge in evidence-based epistemic settings. Health Expectations, 18(5), 942–955.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Ward, P. R., Thompson, J., Barber, R., Armitage, C. J., Boote, J. D., Cooper, C. L., & Jones, G. L. (2010). Critical perspectives on ‘consumer involvement’ in health research: Epistemological dissonance and the know-do gap. Journal of Sociology, 46(1), 63–82.CrossRef
51.
Wiltshire, H. (1916). A contribution to the etiology of shell shock. The Lancet, 187(4842), 1207–1212.CrossRef
52.
53.
Ziebland, S., & Wyke, S. (2012). Health and illness in a connected world: How might sharing experiences on the internet affect people’s health? Milbank Quarterly, 90(2), 219–249.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadaten
Titel
Addressing Deficits and Injustices: The Potential Epistemic Contributions of Patients to Research
verfasst von
Katrina Hutchison
Wendy Rogers
Vikki A. Entwistle
Publikationsdatum
08.06.2016
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Health Care Analysis / Ausgabe 4/2017
Print ISSN: 1065-3058
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-3394
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-016-0323-5

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2017

Health Care Analysis 4/2017 Zur Ausgabe

Original Paper

Am I My Brother’s Keeper? Moral Dimensions of Informal Caregiving in a Neoliberal Society

Original Article

“I am Your Mother and Your Father!” In Vitro Derived Gametes and the Ethics of Solo Reproduction

Original Article

Ethical Frameworks in Public Health Decision-Making: Defending a Value-Based and Pluralist Approach

Original Article

Could Moral Enhancement Interventions be Medically Indicated?

Original Article

Speaking Out and Being Heard Residents’ Committees in Quebec’s Residential Long-Term Care Centre

Original Article

Doctors on Values and Advocacy: A Qualitative and Evaluative Study