ArticleHealth care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy2017
Addressing Deficits and Injustices: The Potential Epistemic Contributions of Patients to Research.
Article in Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- What methods are used to promote patient and family involvement in healthcare regulation? A multiple case study across four countries.BMC health services research · 2020Pooled it
- Patient- and Public-Led Research - How Is It Defined and Practiced: A Scoping Review.Journal of patient experience · 2026Article
- Research ethics and integrity challenges in accelerated clinical trials, an interview study.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Establishing patient partners' roles on research teams: a scoping review.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Activity provider-facilitated patient and public involvement with care home residents.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Democratic Justifications for Patient Public Involvement and Engagement in Health Research: An Exploration of the Theoretical Debates and Practical Challenges.The Journal of medicine and philosophy · 2023Article
- 'Language has been granted too much power'.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
- Epistemic justice in public involvement and engagement: Creating conditions for impact.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
- Methods to Generate Innovative Research Ideas and Improve Patient and Public Involvement in Modern Epidemiological Research: Review, Patient Viewpoint, and Guidelines for Implementation of a Digital Cohort Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Review
- Achieving inclusive research priority-setting: what do people with lived experience and the public think is essential?BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- 'A limpet on a ship': Spatio-temporal dynamics of patient and public involvement in research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
- Developing a toolkit for engagement practice: sharing power with communities in priority-setting for global health research projects.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- Is Co-production Just a Pipe Dream for Applied Health Research Commissioning? An Exploratory Literature Review.Frontiers in sociology · 2019Review
- One For All, All For One? Collective Representation in Healthcare Policy.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2018Article
- The power of symbolic capital in patient and public involvement in health research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Patient or public involvement (PPI) in health research is increasingly expected as a matter of policy. In theory, PPI can contribute both to the epistemic aims intrinsic to research (generating knowledge), and to extrinsically valued features of research such as social inclusion and transparency. In practice, the aims of PPI have not always been clear, although there has been a tendency to encourage the involvement of so-called ordinary people who are regarded as representative of an assumed patient perspective. In this paper we focus on the epistemic potential of PPI, using theoretical work in epistemology to develop a nuanced account of patients' experiential knowledge and how this might contribute directly to conceptual development, hypothesis generation and data interpretation. We also consider how some features of health research pose barriers to this kind of epistemic contribution. Drawing on Miranda Fricker's idea of testimonial injustice, we explore how disciplinary indicators of credibility in clinical and academic health research contexts might be wrongly applied to those involved in PPI, undermining their potential to contribute. Finally we argue for a range of strategies to maximize opportunities for patients to engage with research teams and make epistemologically significant contributions to research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27277736What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.