The evolution of research participant as partner: the seminal contributions of Bob Veatch.

IF 1.1 3区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics Pub Date : 2022-08-01 DOI:10.1007/s11017-022-09579-y
Christine Grady
{"title":"The evolution of research participant as partner: the seminal contributions of Bob Veatch.","authors":"Christine Grady","doi":"10.1007/s11017-022-09579-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Well before patient-centered or patient-controlled research became trendy, and earlier than calls to preferentially refer to research subjects as participants, Bob Veatch wrote \"The Patient as Partner\" Veatch presciently argued that research patients should not be thought of as passive subjects nor material from which to obtain data, but rather as partners in discovery. In this manuscript, I will explore Veatch's conception of patient as partner in research and how that idea has evolved and been implemented over time and consider some of the remaining challenges. Complexities of patient partnership include: clarifying the types of research in which patient partnership is most appropriate, recognizing the various possible levels of patient engagement in each case, avoiding tokenism and striving for respectful partnership, and keeping in mind the appropriate implementation of protections and safeguards. Bob Veatch would be pleased with the progress that has been made in creating research partnerships with patients, while also undoubtedly pushing us to continue to do better.</p>","PeriodicalId":46703,"journal":{"name":"Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics","volume":"43 4","pages":"267-276"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-022-09579-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Well before patient-centered or patient-controlled research became trendy, and earlier than calls to preferentially refer to research subjects as participants, Bob Veatch wrote "The Patient as Partner" Veatch presciently argued that research patients should not be thought of as passive subjects nor material from which to obtain data, but rather as partners in discovery. In this manuscript, I will explore Veatch's conception of patient as partner in research and how that idea has evolved and been implemented over time and consider some of the remaining challenges. Complexities of patient partnership include: clarifying the types of research in which patient partnership is most appropriate, recognizing the various possible levels of patient engagement in each case, avoiding tokenism and striving for respectful partnership, and keeping in mind the appropriate implementation of protections and safeguards. Bob Veatch would be pleased with the progress that has been made in creating research partnerships with patients, while also undoubtedly pushing us to continue to do better.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
研究参与者作为合作伙伴的演变:鲍勃·维奇的开创性贡献。
早在以患者为中心或患者控制的研究成为潮流之前,早在优先将研究对象称为参与者的呼吁之前,鲍勃·韦奇(Bob Veatch)就撰写了《作为合作伙伴的患者》(The Patient as Partner)一书。韦奇很有先见之明地认为,研究患者不应被视为被动的研究对象,也不应被视为获取数据的材料,而应被视为发现的合作伙伴。在本文中,我将探讨威奇将患者作为研究伙伴的理念,以及这一理念是如何随着时间的推移而发展和实施的,并考虑一些仍然存在的挑战。患者伙伴关系的复杂性包括:澄清最适合患者伙伴关系的研究类型,认识到每种情况下患者参与的各种可能水平,避免表面现象并努力建立尊重的伙伴关系,并牢记适当实施保护和保障措施。Bob Veatch会对我们在与患者建立研究伙伴关系方面取得的进展感到高兴,同时也无疑会推动我们继续做得更好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
14.30%
发文量
43
期刊介绍: AIMS & SCOPE Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics examines clinical judgment and reasoning, medical concepts such as health and disease, the philosophical basis of medical science, and the philosophical ethics of health care and biomedical research Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics is an international forum for interdisciplinary studies in the ethics of health care and in the philosophy and methodology of medical practice and biomedical research. Coverage in the philosophy of medicine includes the theoretical examination of clinical judgment and decision making; theories of health promotion and preventive care; the problems of medical language and knowledge acquisition; theory formation in medicine; analysis of the structure and dynamics of medical hypotheses and theories; discussion and clarification of basic medical concepts and issues; medical application of advanced methods in the philosophy of science, and the interplay between medicine and other scientific or social institutions. Coverage of ethics includes both clinical and research ethics, with an emphasis on underlying ethical theory rather than institutional or governmental policy analysis. All philosophical methods and orientations receive equal consideration. The journal pays particular attention to developing new methods and tools for analysis and understanding of the conceptual and ethical presuppositions of the medical sciences and health care processes. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics publishes original scholarly articles, occasional special issues on important topics, and book reviews. Related subjects » Applied Ethics & Social Responsibility – Bioethics – Ethics – Epistemology & Philosophy of Science – Medical Ethics – Medicine – Philosophy – Philosophy of Medicine – Surgery
期刊最新文献
An ageless body does not imply transhumanism: A reply to Levin Risky first-in-human clinical trials on medically fragile persons: owning the moral cost Probability and informed consent. Values, decision-making and empirical bioethics: a conceptual model for empirically identifying and analyzing value judgements. An account of medical treatment, with a preliminary account of medical conditions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1