Is this really Empowerment? Enhancing our understanding of empowerment in patient and public involvement within clinical research

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMC Medical Research Methodology Pub Date : 2024-09-13 DOI:10.1186/s12874-024-02323-1
Imke Schilling, Ansgar Gerhardus
{"title":"Is this really Empowerment? Enhancing our understanding of empowerment in patient and public involvement within clinical research","authors":"Imke Schilling, Ansgar Gerhardus","doi":"10.1186/s12874-024-02323-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There has been a growing push to involve patients in clinical research, shifting from conducting research on, about, or for them to conducting it with them. Two arguments advocate for this approach, known as Patient and Public Involvement (PPI): to improve research quality, appropriateness, relevance, and credibility by including patients’ diverse perspectives, and to use PPI to empower patients and democratize research for more equity in research and healthcare. However, while empowerment is a core objective, it is often not clear what is meant by empowerment in the context of PPI in clinical research. This vacancy can lead to insecurities for both patients and researchers and a disconnect between the rhetoric of empowerment in PPI and the reality of its practice in clinical trials. Thus, clarifying the understanding of empowerment within PPI in clinical research is essential to ensure that involvement does not become tokenistic and depletes patients’ capacity to advocate for their rights and needs. We explored the historical roots of empowerment, primarily emerging from mid-20th century social movements like feminism and civil rights and reflected the conceptual roots of empowerment from diverse fields to better understand the (potential) role of empowerment in PPI in clinical research including its possibilities and limitations. Common themes of empowerment in PPI and other fields are participation, challenging power structures, valuing diverse perspectives, and promoting collaboration. On the other hand, themes such as contextual differences in the empowerment objectives, the relationship between empowerment and scientific demands, research expertise, and power asymmetries mark a clear distinction from empowerment in other fields. PPI offers potential for patient empowerment in clinical trials, even when its primary goal may be research quality. Elements like participation, sharing opinions, and active engagement can contribute to patient empowerment. Nonetheless, some expectations tied to empowerment might not be met within the constraints of clinical research. To empower patients, stakeholders must be explicit about what empowerment means in their research, engage in transparent communication about its realistic scope, and continuously reflect on how empowerment can be fostered and sustained within the research process.","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02323-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There has been a growing push to involve patients in clinical research, shifting from conducting research on, about, or for them to conducting it with them. Two arguments advocate for this approach, known as Patient and Public Involvement (PPI): to improve research quality, appropriateness, relevance, and credibility by including patients’ diverse perspectives, and to use PPI to empower patients and democratize research for more equity in research and healthcare. However, while empowerment is a core objective, it is often not clear what is meant by empowerment in the context of PPI in clinical research. This vacancy can lead to insecurities for both patients and researchers and a disconnect between the rhetoric of empowerment in PPI and the reality of its practice in clinical trials. Thus, clarifying the understanding of empowerment within PPI in clinical research is essential to ensure that involvement does not become tokenistic and depletes patients’ capacity to advocate for their rights and needs. We explored the historical roots of empowerment, primarily emerging from mid-20th century social movements like feminism and civil rights and reflected the conceptual roots of empowerment from diverse fields to better understand the (potential) role of empowerment in PPI in clinical research including its possibilities and limitations. Common themes of empowerment in PPI and other fields are participation, challenging power structures, valuing diverse perspectives, and promoting collaboration. On the other hand, themes such as contextual differences in the empowerment objectives, the relationship between empowerment and scientific demands, research expertise, and power asymmetries mark a clear distinction from empowerment in other fields. PPI offers potential for patient empowerment in clinical trials, even when its primary goal may be research quality. Elements like participation, sharing opinions, and active engagement can contribute to patient empowerment. Nonetheless, some expectations tied to empowerment might not be met within the constraints of clinical research. To empower patients, stakeholders must be explicit about what empowerment means in their research, engage in transparent communication about its realistic scope, and continuously reflect on how empowerment can be fostered and sustained within the research process.
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
这真的是赋权吗?加强我们对患者和公众参与临床研究的理解
让患者参与临床研究的呼声日益高涨,研究工作已从针对患者、关于患者或为患者进行的研究转变为与患者共同进行的研究。这种被称为 "患者与公众参与"(Patient and Public Involvement,PPI)的方法有两个主张:一是通过纳入患者的不同观点来提高研究质量、适当性、相关性和可信度;二是利用 PPI 增强患者的能力,实现研究民主化,从而提高研究和医疗保健的公平性。然而,虽然赋权是一项核心目标,但在临床研究中的患者参与计划中,赋权的含义往往并不明确。这种空缺可能会导致患者和研究人员的不安全感,并使 PPI 中的授权说辞与临床试验中的实际做法脱节。因此,厘清临床研究中 PPI 对授权的理解至关重要,这样才能确保参与不会成为象征性的,也不会削弱患者维护自身权利和需求的能力。我们探讨了赋权的历史渊源,主要源于 20 世纪中叶的社会运动,如女权主义和民权运动,并从不同领域反映了赋权的概念渊源,从而更好地理解赋权在临床研究 PPI 中的(潜在)作用,包括其可能性和局限性。PPI 和其他领域赋权的共同主题是参与、挑战权力结构、重视不同观点和促进合作。另一方面,赋权目标的背景差异、赋权与科学需求之间的关系、研究专长和权力不对称等主题也标志着与其他领域赋权的明显区别。PPI 为临床试验中的患者赋权提供了潜力,即使其主要目标可能是提高研究质量。参与、分享意见和积极参与等要素都有助于增强患者的能力。然而,在临床研究的限制条件下,一些与赋权相关的期望可能无法实现。为了增强患者的能力,利益相关者必须明确增强能力在研究中的意义,就其现实范围进行透明的沟通,并不断反思如何在研究过程中促进和维持增强能力。
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
BMC Medical Research Methodology
BMC Medical Research Methodology 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
298
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Research Methodology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in methodological approaches to healthcare research. Articles on the methodology of epidemiological research, clinical trials and meta-analysis/systematic review are particularly encouraged, as are empirical studies of the associations between choice of methodology and study outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology does not aim to publish articles describing scientific methods or techniques: these should be directed to the BMC journal covering the relevant biomedical subject area.
期刊最新文献
The role of the estimand framework in the analysis of patient-reported outcomes in single-arm trials: a case study in oncology. Cardinality matching versus propensity score matching for addressing cluster-level residual confounding in implantable medical device and surgical epidemiology: a parametric and plasmode simulation study. Establishing a machine learning dementia progression prediction model with multiple integrated data. Correction: Forced randomization: the what, why, and how. Three new methodologies for calculating the effective sample size when performing population adjustment.
×
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