ReviewInternational journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being2025
Lifeworld-led research: a phenomenological approach to grant experts by experience in vulnerable positions their right to participate in healthcare research.
Review in International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being, 2025. 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.
- From safety to agency: experiences of self-admission among patients with diverse mental health needs.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2026Article
- Phenomenon-oriented lifeworld-led data generation in qualitative research-challenging absent or inadequate choices of methods.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2026Review
- Uncovering the realities of suicidal ideation in older patients following lung cancer diagnosis: an interpretive phenomenological qualitative study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe advocate for a phenomenological lifeworld-led research approach that provides ontological and epistemological foundations for an open methodology that emphasizes the in-depth exploration of human phenomena. This approach invites multiple perspectives to facilitate meaningful, equitable participation of 'experts by experience.' We caution against superficially designating participants as "co-researchers," as this might obscure underlying power imbalances.
methodsDrawing from Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, and Gadamer, we outline a theoretical framework for lifeworld-led research. This methodology prioritizes open-ended data collection methods, including interviews, observations, written narratives, and supplementary approaches (visual tools, dialogue cards). Reflective, rigorous meaning analysis-rather than content analysis-guides interpretation to capture the complexity of participants lived experiences.
resultsThis methodology requires adopting an attitude of open awareness, described as a "bridled" attitude, whereby researchers deliberately slow their understanding to avoid prematurely drawing conclusions. While universal meanings (meaningfulness, love, respect) may be shared, individuals uniquely experience these phenomena. Rather than homogenizing patient groups, we recognize that patients with similar diagnoses may share experiences while maintaining distinct, individual insights. DISCUSSION: Our approach clearly delineates the roles of professional researchers' and 'experts by experience.' The lifeworld-led approach utilizes participants as "experts by experience," explicitly acknowledging inherent contradictions and complexities while avoiding overpowering their voices.
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.