ArticleSociology of health & illness2022
Experiential expertise in the co-development of social and health-care services: Self-promotion and self-dismissal as interactional strategies.
Article in Sociology of health & illness, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient engagement in the development and delivery of healthcare services: a systematic scoping review.BMJ open quality · 2023Article
- Recognition in interaction: theoretical and empirical observations.Frontiers in sociology · 2023Article
- Experiential expertise in the co-development of social and health-care services: Self-promotion and self-dismissal as interactional strategies.Sociology of health & illness · 2022Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Increasing client involvement in the development of social and health-care services has resulted in clients being invited to present their experiential knowledge in service co-development groups. Nevertheless, research has shown that their opportunities to really contribute to actual decision-making are limited. This article investigates how client representatives initiate turns-at-talk in the decision-making context and the way in which professionals respond to them. Using conversation analysis, we analyzed 15 h of recorded interactions in five co-development workshops. Our data exhibited a systematic pattern that linked client representatives' self-promoting and self-dismissive turns-at-talk to specific types of responses from professionals. When the client representatives highlighted the relevance of their experiential knowledge for making decisions, the professionals disregarded their contributions. However, if instead, the client representatives cast their experiential knowledge as irrelevant to the decision-making activity at hand, the professionals subsequently appreciated this knowledge. Thus, paradoxically, in order to establish the relevance of their views, client representatives diminished their positions as experiential experts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.