Search

Background: Co‐produced research holds enormous value within the health sciences. Yet, there can be a heavy focus on what research participants think, do and know; while the researcher's responsibility to explore and re/work their own knowledge or praxis tends to escape from view. This is reflected in the limited use of co‐production to explore broad structural distributions of health and risk(s). We argue this missed opportunity has the potential to unfold as what Berlant calls a 'cruel optimism', where something desirable becomes an obstacle to flourishing and/or produces harm. We explore challenges to involving lay populations meaningfully in health research amidst a neoliberal cultural landscape that tends to responsibilise people with problems they cannot solve. Methods and Findings: Drawing together principles from hermeneutic and feminist philosophy, we develop a novel methodology for co‐producing research about determinants of health and health risk (using a case study of alcohol consumption as an example) that centres on what researchers do, know and think during research: Women's Thought Collectives. Discussion: Keeping the constructed nature of social systems—because they shape ideas of value, expertise and knowledge—in view during co‐produced research illuminates the potential for cruel optimisms within it. Such reflexive awareness carves out starting points for researchers to engage with how social hierarchies might (tacitly) operate during the co‐production of knowledge. Our work has broad utility for diverse population groups and provides important considerations around the roles and responsibilities for reflexive co‐production of knowledge at all levels of health systems. Patient or Public Contribution: The development of these ideas was sparked by working with lay participants during the Women's Thought Collectives for Kristen Foley's doctoral research 2021–2023, but undertaken without their direct involvement—in accordance with the responsibilities of researchers in the reflexive co‐production of knowledge. Forthcoming publications will address the outcomes and processes of this work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This study sought to identify how diabetes organisations conceptualize the problem of diabetes‐related stigma and how this shapes the selection of stigma‐reduction interventions. Methods: A qualitative deliberative democratic methodology was used to access an informed dialogue about what should be done by diabetes organisations to address diabetes‐related stigma, drawing from the perspectives of board members, healthcare services staff, and communications and marketing staff from a single state‐wide diabetes organisation in Australia (n = 25). Results: Participants navigated the stigma concept along two axes: one that drew attention to either disease attributes or personal moral attributes as the object of stigmatisation, and one that positioned stigma as an individual or structural problem. This shaped the selection of stigma‐reduction interventions, which included interventions to: (i) reduce the prevalence of stigmatized attributes, (ii) correct misunderstandings about diabetes, (iii) modify representations of persons with diabetes, (iii) enhance coping amongst persons with diabetes and (iv) make healthcare more person‐centred and democratic. Conclusion: This study identified several grievances with 'diabetes‐related stigma', which are grievances that can be conceptualized and addressed at both individual and structural levels, and involve correcting misinformation about diabetes or challenging and communicating alternative representations of persons living with diabetes. Patient or Public Contribution: The organisation's management and board were consulted throughout all stages of research development, analysis and reporting. The information and vignettes presented to participants drew from illness narratives obtained from earlier research involving adults with type 2 diabetes. Research participants included adults with various diabetes types. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) has the second highest cancer mortality rate in Australia. The Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) aims to increase early detection of CRC by offering free Faecal Occult Blood Testing (FOBT), although uptake is low for culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) groups. Aim of paper: To present data on trust and mistrust in the NBCSP by population groups with low uptake and thus to highlight areas in need of policy change. Methods: A qualitative study was undertaken in South Australia, involving interviews with 94 people from four CALD groups: Greek, Iranian, Anglo‐Australian, and Indigenous peoples. Results: Our study highlights the complexities of institutional trust, which involves considerations of trust at interpersonal, local and national levels. In addition, trust and mistrust was found in more abstract systems such as the medical knowledge of doctors to diagnose or treat cancer or the scientific procedures in laboratories to test the FOBTs. The object of institutional (mis)trust differed between cultural groups – Anglo‐Australian and Iranian groups indicated a high level of trust in the government, whereas Indigenous participants were much less trusting. Conclusion: The level and nature of trust in the screening process varied between the CALD groups. Addressing program misconceptions, clarifying the FOBT capabilities and involving medical services in collecting and transporting the samples may increase trust in the NBCSP. However, broader and more enduring mistrust in services and institutions may need to be dealt with in order to increase trust and participation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To investigate health researchers’ attitudes to involving the public in research. Background Public involvement in research is encouraged by the Department of Health in the UK. Despite this, the number of health researchers actively involving the public in research appears to be limited. There is little research specifically addressing the attitudes of health researchers towards involving the public: how they interpret the policy, what motivates and de-motivates them and what their experiences have been to date. Design A qualitative research design, using semi-structured telephone interviews. Setting and participants Fifteen purposively sampled UK-based University health researchers were the participants. Interviews were conducted over the telephone. Findings The participants suggested varying constructions of public involvement in research. Arguments based on moral and political principles and consequentialist arguments for involving the public in research were offered and most participants highlighted the potential benefits of involving the public. However, feelings of apprehension expressed by some participants imply that a number of researchers may still be uncomfortable with involving the public, as it presents a different way of working. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]