What Patients Prioritize for Research to Improve Their Lives and How Their Priorities Get Dismissed again

Barbara Groot, Annyk Haveman, Mireille Buree, Ruud van Zuijlen, Juliette van Zuijlen and Tineke Abma
Additional contact information
Barbara Groot: Department Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden University, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands
Annyk Haveman: Centrum voor Cliëntervaringen, Jacob Bontiusplaats 9 (INIT-gebouw), 1018 LL Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Mireille Buree: Centrum voor Cliëntervaringen, Jacob Bontiusplaats 9 (INIT-gebouw), 1018 LL Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Ruud van Zuijlen: Centrum voor Cliëntervaringen, Jacob Bontiusplaats 9 (INIT-gebouw), 1018 LL Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Juliette van Zuijlen: Centrum voor Cliëntervaringen, Jacob Bontiusplaats 9 (INIT-gebouw), 1018 LL Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tineke Abma: Department Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden University, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands

IJERPH, 2022, vol. 19, issue 4, 1-15

Abstract: Health researchers increasingly work with patients in a participatory fashion. Active patient involvement throughout the research process can provide epistemic justice to patients who have often only had an informant role in traditional health research. This study aims to conduct participatory research on patient experiences to create a solid research agenda with patients and discuss it with relevant stakeholders. We followed a participatory research design in 18 sub-studies, including interviews and group sessions ( n = 404 patients), and dialogue sessions ( n = 367 professionals and directors in healthcare and social work, municipality civil servants, and funding agencies) on patient experiences with psychiatric care, community care, daycare, public health, and social work. Findings from the eight-year study show that four priorities stood out: attention for misuse of power and abuse; meaningful participation; non-human assistance, and peer support. Moreover, that: (1) patients, based on their experiences, prioritize different topics than experts; (2) most topics are trans-diagnostic and point to the value of a cross-disability approach; and (3) the priorities of patients are all too easily dismissed and require ethics work to prevent epistemic injustice. Long-term investment in a transdisciplinary community of practice offers a solid basis for addressing patient-centered topics and may impact the quality of life of people living with chronic illness, disability, or vulnerability.

Keywords: patient perspective; epistemic injustice; community of practice; participatory health research; co-researchers; assistance dogs; assistive technology; abuse; dependency; peer support (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/4/1927/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/4/1927/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:4:p:1927-:d:745164

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().