Dear sceptics of patient engagement in research

The BMJ Pub Date : 2025-01-22 DOI:10.1136/bmj.r133
Dawn P Richards
{"title":"Dear sceptics of patient engagement in research","authors":"Dawn P Richards","doi":"10.1136/bmj.r133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Dawn P Richards challenges some of the common objections to patient engagement in research I have been in a lot of spaces over the years where people were not convinced about patient engagement in research. They often feel that they already have enough to do, or that this is “yet another” hoop that funding agencies are requiring them to jump through. I am writing this for you. I am not entirely sure that I will change your mind, but hopefully I can get you to think about some of your objections and why patient engagement in research is generally a good thing. ### Patients are vulnerable in most systems Firstly, I would ask you to consider that patients are pretty much at the bottom of the pecking order in most situations or settings. In healthcare, they are beholden to healthcare providers and are obliged to behave like a “good patient.”` A good patient asks questions gently or strategically (or not at all!), avoids being too “difficult,” and does not challenge the professionals. Never mind that patients live 24/7 with their chronic condition or the health consequences of an acute illness, and that they manage as best …","PeriodicalId":22388,"journal":{"name":"The BMJ","volume":"81 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The BMJ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.r133","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Dawn P Richards challenges some of the common objections to patient engagement in research I have been in a lot of spaces over the years where people were not convinced about patient engagement in research. They often feel that they already have enough to do, or that this is “yet another” hoop that funding agencies are requiring them to jump through. I am writing this for you. I am not entirely sure that I will change your mind, but hopefully I can get you to think about some of your objections and why patient engagement in research is generally a good thing. ### Patients are vulnerable in most systems Firstly, I would ask you to consider that patients are pretty much at the bottom of the pecking order in most situations or settings. In healthcare, they are beholden to healthcare providers and are obliged to behave like a “good patient.”` A good patient asks questions gently or strategically (or not at all!), avoids being too “difficult,” and does not challenge the professionals. Never mind that patients live 24/7 with their chronic condition or the health consequences of an acute illness, and that they manage as best …
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
亲爱的怀疑病人参与研究的人
Dawn P Richards挑战了一些常见的反对病人参与研究的观点,这些年来我在很多地方都遇到过人们不相信病人参与研究的情况。他们经常觉得他们已经有足够的事情要做,或者这是资助机构要求他们跨越的“又一个”障碍。我为你写这封信。我不确定我是否会改变你的想法,但希望我能让你思考你的一些反对意见,以及为什么患者参与研究通常是一件好事。首先,我想让你考虑到,在大多数情况下,病人都是处于社会底层的。在医疗保健领域,他们对医疗服务提供者负有义务,有义务表现得像个“好病人”。“一个好的病人会温和地或有策略地问问题(或者根本不问!),避免太‘难’,也不会挑战专业人士。”不要介意病人24小时不间断地与他们的慢性疾病或急性疾病的健康后果生活在一起,他们最好地管理……
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Evaluation and management of chest pain from cardiovascular causes in female patients. GLP-1 drugs: New warning after rise in reported deaths from pancreatitis. PSA screening remains a probabilistic gamble. Ecosystem destruction will force the UK to tackle food security. Remote consultations-a governance gap in patient safety.
×
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:604180095
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