Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Participatory research in health promotion: a critical review and illustration of rationales

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In health promotion research, enthusiasm for patient and public involvement (PPI) is growing. However, a lack of conceptual clarity leads to ambiguities in participatory processes and purposes, and hampers efforts to achieve and evaluate PPI in research. This study provides an overview of its underlying reasons—or rationales—so as to better understand, guide and interpret PPI in research practice. We conducted a critical review to identify typologies of rationales for PPI. We re-categorized the different types of rationales from these typologies based on their content. We illustrated the resulting categories of rationales with examples from a case study on PPI in research on Lyme disease. Five categories of rationales for PPI were identified. The democratic rationale reflects the normative right of citizens to have a voice in research. The consumerist rationale refers to the economic right of stakeholders with interests to have a say. Rooted in social justice, the transformative rationale seeks to empower marginalized groups. The substantive rationale starts from epistemic considerations and aims to improve the quality of knowledge that research generates. The instrumental rationale is of pragmatic origin and refers to improved efficiency and effectiveness of the research. Our overview of categories of rationales can be used as a frame of reference for PPI in health promotion research. Exploring, stating explicitly and reflecting on the underlying reasons for PPI may help to define realistic purposes, select matching approaches and design appropriate evaluation studies. This might also contribute to the conceptualization of PPI.

          Related collections

          Most cited references48

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies.

          The expansion of evidence-based practice across sectors has lead to an increasing variety of review types. However, the diversity of terminology used means that the full potential of these review types may be lost amongst a confusion of indistinct and misapplied terms. The objective of this study is to provide descriptive insight into the most common types of reviews, with illustrative examples from health and health information domains. Following scoping searches, an examination was made of the vocabulary associated with the literature of review and synthesis (literary warrant). A simple analytical framework -- Search, AppraisaL, Synthesis and Analysis (SALSA) -- was used to examine the main review types. Fourteen review types and associated methodologies were analysed against the SALSA framework, illustrating the inputs and processes of each review type. A description of the key characteristics is given, together with perceived strengths and weaknesses. A limited number of review types are currently utilized within the health information domain. Few review types possess prescribed and explicit methodologies and many fall short of being mutually exclusive. Notwithstanding such limitations, this typology provides a valuable reference point for those commissioning, conducting, supporting or interpreting reviews, both within health information and the wider health care domain.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Patient engagement in research: a systematic review

            Background A compelling ethical rationale supports patient engagement in healthcare research. It is also assumed that patient engagement will lead to research findings that are more pertinent to patients’ concerns and dilemmas. However; it is unclear how to best conduct this process. In this systematic review we aimed to answer 4 key questions: what are the best ways to identify patient representatives? How to engage them in designing and conducting research? What are the observed benefits of patient engagement? What are the harms and barriers of patient engagement? Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane, EBSCO, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Business Search Premier, Academic Search Premier and Google Scholar. Included studies were published in English, of any size or design that described engaging patients or their surrogates in research design. We conducted an environmental scan of the grey literature and consulted with experts and patients. Data were analyzed using a non-quantitative, meta-narrative approach. Results We included 142 studies that described a spectrum of engagement. In general, engagement was feasible in most settings and most commonly done in the beginning of research (agenda setting and protocol development) and less commonly during the execution and translation of research. We found no comparative analytic studies to recommend a particular method. Patient engagement increased study enrollment rates and aided researchers in securing funding, designing study protocols and choosing relevant outcomes. The most commonly cited challenges were related to logistics (extra time and funding needed for engagement) and to an overarching worry of a tokenistic engagement. Conclusions Patient engagement in healthcare research is likely feasible in many settings. However, this engagement comes at a cost and can become tokenistic. Research dedicated to identifying the best methods to achieve engagement is lacking and clearly needed.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities.

              Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research has expanded nationally and internationally over the last decade, and recently there has been significant attention given to understanding its impact on research. Less attention has been given to the impact of PPI on the people involved, yet it has been shown that the success of PPI in research can be reliant on the processes of engagement between these individuals and communities. This paper therefore critically explores the impact of PPI on service users, researchers and communities involved in health and social care research.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Health Promot Int
                Health Promot Int
                heapro
                Health Promotion International
                Oxford University Press
                0957-4824
                1460-2245
                June 2022
                23 June 2022
                23 June 2022
                : 37
                : Suppl 2 , Participatory health promotion research for sustainable change: Methodological and theoretical developments
                : ii7-ii20
                Affiliations
                Department of Public and Occupation Health, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute , Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, 1105 AZ, The Netherlands
                Department of Ethics, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Law & Humanities, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute , Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, 1105 AZ, The Netherlands
                Department of Public and Occupation Health, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute , Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, 1105 AZ, The Netherlands
                Department of Public and Occupation Health, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute , Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, 1105 AZ, The Netherlands
                Author notes
                Corresponding author. E-mail: j.harting@ 123456amsterdamumc.nl
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2811-9551
                Article
                daac016
                10.1093/heapro/daac016
                9226656
                35748283
                865e3275-32ec-4ea4-9e79-50007bddcf41
                © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Page count
                Pages: 14
                Funding
                Funded by: Foundation for the Sociology of Health and Illness;
                Funded by: Nature of Participation as Evidence in Health Research, Policy and Practice’ in 2014;
                Funded by: Lyme disease was funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development;
                Award ID: 50-50405-98-251
                Funded by: Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, DOI 10.13039/100018562;
                Funded by: Capital Region of Denmark, DOI 10.13039/501100005275;
                Funded by: Novo Nordisk Foundation, DOI 10.13039/501100009708;
                Categories
                Supplement Articles
                AcademicSubjects/MED00860

                Public health
                participation,research,review,case study
                Public health
                participation, research, review, case study

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content251

                Cited by12

                Most referenced authors455