Personal Responsibility for Health: Exploring Together with Lay Persons.

IF 1.4 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Public Health Ethics Pub Date : 2022-07-01 DOI:10.1093/phe/phac009
Yukiko Asada, Marion Brown, Mary McNally, Andrea Murphy, Robin Urquhart, Grace Warner
{"title":"Personal Responsibility for Health: Exploring Together with Lay Persons.","authors":"Yukiko Asada,&nbsp;Marion Brown,&nbsp;Mary McNally,&nbsp;Andrea Murphy,&nbsp;Robin Urquhart,&nbsp;Grace Warner","doi":"10.1093/phe/phac009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Emerging parallel to long-standing, academic and policy inquiries on personal responsibility for health is the empirical assessment of lay persons' views. Yet, previous studies rarely explored personal responsibility for health among lay persons as dynamic societal values. We sought to explore lay persons' views on personal responsibility for health using the Fairness Dialogues, a method for lay persons to deliberate equity issues in health and health care through a small group dialogue using a hypothetical scenario. We conducted two 2-h Fairness Dialogues sessions (<i>n</i> = 15 in total) in Nova Scotia, Canada. We analyzed data using thematic analysis. Our analysis showed that personal choice played an important role in participants' thinking about health. Underlying the concept of personal choice was considerations of freedom and societal debt. In participants' minds, personal and social responsibilities co-existed and they were unwilling to determine health care priority based on personal responsibility. The Fairness Dialogues is a promising deliberative method to explore lay persons' views as dynamic values to be developed through group dialogues as opposed to static, already-formed values waiting to be elicited.</p>","PeriodicalId":49136,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9719321/pdf/phac009.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phac009","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Emerging parallel to long-standing, academic and policy inquiries on personal responsibility for health is the empirical assessment of lay persons' views. Yet, previous studies rarely explored personal responsibility for health among lay persons as dynamic societal values. We sought to explore lay persons' views on personal responsibility for health using the Fairness Dialogues, a method for lay persons to deliberate equity issues in health and health care through a small group dialogue using a hypothetical scenario. We conducted two 2-h Fairness Dialogues sessions (n = 15 in total) in Nova Scotia, Canada. We analyzed data using thematic analysis. Our analysis showed that personal choice played an important role in participants' thinking about health. Underlying the concept of personal choice was considerations of freedom and societal debt. In participants' minds, personal and social responsibilities co-existed and they were unwilling to determine health care priority based on personal responsibility. The Fairness Dialogues is a promising deliberative method to explore lay persons' views as dynamic values to be developed through group dialogues as opposed to static, already-formed values waiting to be elicited.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
个人健康责任:与外行人共同探讨。
与对个人健康责任的长期学术和政策调查同时出现的是对非专业人士观点的经验评估。然而,以往的研究很少将非专业人士的个人健康责任作为动态的社会价值来探讨。我们试图通过公平对话来探索非专业人士对个人健康责任的看法,这是一种非专业人士通过使用假设场景的小组对话来审议健康和医疗保健中的公平问题的方法。我们在加拿大新斯科舍省进行了两次2小时的公平对话(共15次)。我们使用主题分析来分析数据。我们的分析表明,个人选择在参与者对健康的看法中起着重要作用。个人选择概念的基础是对自由和社会债务的考虑。在参与者心目中,个人责任和社会责任并存,他们不愿意根据个人责任来确定医疗保健的优先次序。公平对话是一种很有前途的协商方法,它探索外行人的观点,将其作为动态的价值观,通过群体对话来发展,而不是静态的、已经形成的价值观,等待被激发出来。
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
Public Health Ethics
Public Health Ethics PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-MEDICAL ETHICS
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
9.50%
发文量
28
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Public Health Ethics invites submission of papers on any topic that is relevant for ethical reflection about public health practice and theory. Our aim is to publish readable papers of high scientific quality which will stimulate debate and discussion about ethical issues relating to all aspects of public health. Our main criteria for grading manuscripts include originality and potential impact, quality of philosophical analysis, and relevance to debates in public health ethics and practice. Manuscripts are accepted for publication on the understanding that they have been submitted solely to Public Health Ethics and that they have not been previously published either in whole or in part. Authors may not submit papers that are under consideration for publication elsewhere, and, if an author decides to offer a submitted paper to another journal, the paper must be withdrawn from Public Health Ethics before the new submission is made. The editorial office will make every effort to deal with submissions to the journal as quickly as possible. All papers will be acknowledged on receipt by email and will receive preliminary editorial review within 2 weeks. Papers of high interest will be sent out for external review. Authors will normally be notified of acceptance, rejection, or need for revision within 8 weeks of submission. Contributors will be provided with electronic access to their proof via email; corrections should be returned within 48 hours.
期刊最新文献
From Self-Management to Shared-Management: A Relational Approach for Equitable Chronic Care The Application of Australian Rights Protections to the Use of Hepatitis C Notification Data to Engage People ‘Lost to Follow Up’ Antimicrobial Resistance, One Health Interventions and the Least Restrictive Alternative Principle Developing an ethical evaluation framework for coercive antimicrobial stewardship policies Time to Treat the Climate and Nature Crisis as One Indivisible Global Health Emergency.
×
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