Knowledge, evidence, expertise? The epistemics of experience in contemporary healthcare

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Evidence & Policy Pub Date : 2020-05-01 DOI:10.1332/174426420x15808912561112
Fadhila Mazanderani, Tehseen Noorani, Farzana Dudhwala, Zara Thokozani Kamwendo
{"title":"Knowledge, evidence, expertise? The epistemics of experience in contemporary healthcare","authors":"Fadhila Mazanderani, Tehseen Noorani, Farzana Dudhwala, Zara Thokozani Kamwendo","doi":"10.1332/174426420x15808912561112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores how personal experience acquires the status of knowledge and/or evidence in contemporary healthcare contexts that emphasise being both patient-centred and evidence-based. Drawing on a comparative analysis of three case studies ‐ self-help and mutual aid groups;\n online patient activism; and patient feedback in healthcare service delivery ‐ we foreground: a) the role that different technologies and temporalities play in how experience is turned (or fails to be turned) into knowledge or evidence; b) the role that experts-of-experience,\n in addition to the more frequently referenced experts-by-experience, play in mediating how, when and why experience is turned into an epistemic resource; and finally, c) how the need to be ‘evidence-based’ remains a persistent, yet at times productive, challenge to how patient\n and user experiences are incorporated in contemporary healthcare policy and practice. Throughout the paper, we argue that it is necessary to look at both democratic and epistemic imperatives for including patient and service users in healthcare services and policymaking based on their experience.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1332/174426420x15808912561112","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426420x15808912561112","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

This paper explores how personal experience acquires the status of knowledge and/or evidence in contemporary healthcare contexts that emphasise being both patient-centred and evidence-based. Drawing on a comparative analysis of three case studies ‐ self-help and mutual aid groups; online patient activism; and patient feedback in healthcare service delivery ‐ we foreground: a) the role that different technologies and temporalities play in how experience is turned (or fails to be turned) into knowledge or evidence; b) the role that experts-of-experience, in addition to the more frequently referenced experts-by-experience, play in mediating how, when and why experience is turned into an epistemic resource; and finally, c) how the need to be ‘evidence-based’ remains a persistent, yet at times productive, challenge to how patient and user experiences are incorporated in contemporary healthcare policy and practice. Throughout the paper, we argue that it is necessary to look at both democratic and epistemic imperatives for including patient and service users in healthcare services and policymaking based on their experience.
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
知识、证据、专业知识?当代医疗保健中的经验认识论
本文探讨了在强调以患者为中心和循证的当代医疗环境中,个人经验如何获得知识和/或证据的地位。根据对三个案例研究的比较分析——自助和互助团体;在线患者行动主义;以及医疗服务提供中的患者反馈——我们展望:a)不同的技术和时间在经验如何转化(或未能转化)为知识或证据方面发挥的作用;b) 经验专家,除了更经常被经验引用的专家之外,在如何、何时以及为什么将经验转化为认识资源方面发挥的作用;最后,c)对于如何将患者和用户体验纳入当代医疗政策和实践,“循证”的需求仍然是一个持久但有时富有成效的挑战。在整篇论文中,我们认为有必要同时考虑民主和认识的必要性,将患者和服务使用者纳入医疗服务和基于他们经验的决策中。
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
Evidence & Policy
Evidence & Policy SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
53
期刊最新文献
Breaking the Overton Window: on the need for adversarial co-production Examining research systems and models for local government: a systematic review Experiences and perceptions of evidence use among senior health service decision makers in Ireland: a qualitative study The critical factors in producing high quality and policy-relevant research: insights from international behavioural science units Understanding brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners: a multi-sectoral review of strategies, skills, and outcomes
×
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