Researchers' perspectives on public involvement in health research in Singapore : the argument for a community-based approach
Background: Singapore is becoming a world‐class research hub, promoting the advancement of patient care through translational clinical research. Despite growing evidence internationally of the positive impact of public involvement (PPI), in Singapore PPI remains unusual beyond patient participation...
Saved in:
Main Authors: | , , |
---|---|
Other Authors: | |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
2020
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/10356/142216 |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Institution: | Nanyang Technological University |
Language: | English |
Summary: | Background: Singapore is becoming a world‐class research hub, promoting the advancement of patient care through translational clinical research. Despite growing evidence internationally of the positive impact of public involvement (PPI), in Singapore PPI remains unusual beyond patient participation as subjects in studies. Objective: To explore health researchers' understandings of the principles, role and scope of PPI, and to identify barriers and opportunities for implementation in Singapore. Design: Semi‐structured qualitative interviews between April and July 2018. Data were analysed using thematic framework analysis. Results: Whilst most participants (n = 20) expressed a lack of experience of PPI, the interview process provided an opportunity for reflection through which it emerged as a beneficial strategy. Interviewees highlighted both utilitarian and ethical reasons for implementing PPI, particularly around increasing the relevance and efficiency of research. In addition to those challenges to PPI documented in the existing literature, participants highlighted others specific to the Singaporean context that make PPI at an individual level unlikely to be successful, including the socio‐political environment and prevailing social and professional hierarchies. They also identified asset‐based strategies to overcome these, in particular, a more community‐oriented approach. Conclusion: The cultural reluctance of individuals to question perceived authority figures such as researchers may be overcome by adopting an approach to PPI that is closer to family and local community values, and which facilitates patients and the public collectively engaging in research. Further work is needed to explore the views of patients and the public in Singapore, and the implications for other Asian communities. |
---|