Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36054140›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Are we leaving someone behind? A critical discourse analysis on the understanding of public participation among people with experiences of participatory research.

Constanza Jacques-Aviñó, Elena Roel, Laura Medina-Perucha, Jasmine McGhie, Mariona Pons-Vigués, Enriqueta Pujol-Ribera, Irene Turiel, Anna Berenguera

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Constanza Jacques-AviñóFundació Institut Universitari d'Investigació en Atenció Primària Jordi Gol (IDIAPJGol), Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8506-780X
Elena RoelFundació Institut Universitari d'Investigació en Atenció Primària Jordi Gol (IDIAPJGol), Barcelona, Spain.
Laura Medina-PeruchaFundació Institut Universitari d'Investigació en Atenció Primària Jordi Gol (IDIAPJGol), Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-2981-2614
Jasmine McGhieSerMas, Servicio de Salud, Centro de Salud de Potes, Villaverde, Madrid, Spain.
Mariona Pons-ViguésServei Català de la Salut (CatSalut), Travessera de les Corts, Edifici Olímpia, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-7929-3701
Enriqueta Pujol-RiberaFundació Institut Universitari d'Investigació en Atenció Primària Jordi Gol (IDIAPJGol), Barcelona, Spain.
Irene TurielSESPA, Servicio de Salud, Área I Atención Primaria, Asturias, Spain.
Anna BerengueraFundació Institut Universitari d'Investigació en Atenció Primària Jordi Gol (IDIAPJGol), Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Participatory research (PR) is on the rise. In Spain, PR is scarce in the field of health, although there is an increasing interest in the matter. A comprehensive understanding of the meanings and practical implications of "public participation" is essential to promote participation in health research. The aim of the study is to explore the discursive positions on PR among individuals with experience in participatory processes in different areas and how this understanding translates into practice. We conducted a critical discourse analysis of 21 individuals with experience in PR and participatory processes (13 women, 8 men), mainly from the field of health and other areas of knowledge. Sixteen were Spanish and the rest were from the United Kingdom (3), United States (1), and Canada (1). Interviews were conducted in person or by telephone. The fieldwork was conducted between March 2019 and November 2019. The dominant discourses on public participation are situated along two axes situated on a continuum: the purpose of public participation and how power should be distributed in public participation processes. The first is instrumental public participation, which sees participatory research as a tool to improve research results and focuses on institutional interests and power-decision making is hold by researchers and institutions. The second, is transformative public participation, with a focus on social change and an equitable sharing of decision-making power between the public and researchers. All discursive positions stated that they do not carry out specific strategies to include the most socially disadvantaged individuals or groups. A shift in the scientific approach about knowledge, along with time and resources, are required to move towards a more balanced power distribution in the processes involving the public.

Indexed as

Community-Based Participatory ResearchCommunity ParticipationCanadaFemaleHumansMaleSpainUnited KingdomUnited States

Identifiers

PMID36054140
PMCPMC9439240

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.