Cited by 128Mental Health and Patient InvolvementCommunity Health and DevelopmentPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

The power of symbolic capital in patient and public involvement in health research

Open access
Locock, Louise, Boylan, Anne‐Marie, Snow, Rosamund, Staniszewska, Sophie·2017·Health Expectations

Abstract

Background: Policy‐makers and health research funders increasingly require researchers to demonstrate that they have involved patients in the design and conduct of research. However, the extent to which patients and public have the power to get involved on an equal footing is dependent on their economic, cultural, social and symbolic capital. Objective: To explore power relations in patient and public involvement (PPI) in research, particularly how patients may wield symbolic capital to develop a more equal relationship. Methods: Narrative interviews with a maximum variation sample of 38 people involved as patients, carers or public in health research, analysed thematically. Findings: Symbolic capital may be demonstrated in a range of ways (sometimes alongside or in the absence of other forms of capital): illness experience, technical illness knowledge and the challenging outsider. Symbolic capital is unstable and dependent on others for recognition and legitimacy. Nonetheless, participants identify a gradual shift in power relations over time. Discussion and conclusions: Research into PPI has been conceptually and theoretically poor, limiting our understanding of its mechanisms and wider contextual elements. Our findings demonstrate the importance of reflecting on the forms of power and capital wielded by the health research community, and of acknowledging the way in which PPI is challenging the status quo. As one of the first papers to conceptualize how different forms of symbolic capital operate and their critical role in challenging the balance of power, our findings may help researchers better plan their PPI activities and reflect on their own power.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/hex.12519

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. [1]Coulter A. Engaging Patients in Healthcare. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2011.
  2. [2]Berwick DM. What ‘patient‐centered’ should mean: confessions of an extremist. Health Aff. 2009; 28: w555– w565. 19454528
  3. [3]Crawford MJ, Rutter D, Manley C, et al. Systematic review of involving patients in the planning and development of health care. BMJ. 2002; 325: 1263. 12458240 PMC136920
  4. [4]Bate P, Robert G. Experience based design: from redesigning the system around the patient to co‐designing services with the patient. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006; 15: 307– 310. 17074863 PMC2565809
  5. [5]Wiig S, Storm M, Aase K, et al. Investigating the use of patient involvement and patient experience in quality improvement in Norway: rhetoric or reality? BMC Health Serv Res. 2013; 13: 206. 23742265 PMC3680039
  6. [6]Thornton S. Beyond rhetoric: we need a strategy for patient involvement in the health service. Br Med J. 2014; 348: g4072. 24957899
  7. [7]Coulter A, Locock L, Ziebland S, Calabrese J. Collecting data on patient experience is not enough: they must be used to improve care. Br Med J. 2014; 348: g2225. 24671966
  8. [8]Beresford P. User involvement in research and evaluation: liberation or regulation? Soc Policy Soc. 2002; 1: 95– 105.
  9. [9]Snape D, Kirkham J, Britten N, et al. Exploring perceived barriers, drivers, impacts and the need for evaluation of public involvement in health and social care research: a modified Delphi study. BMJ Open. 2014; 4: e004943. PMC4067891 24939808
  10. [13]Gibson A, Britten N, Lynch J. Theoretical directions for an emancipatory concept of patient and public involvement. Health (London). 2012; 16: 531– 547. 22535648
  11. [15]Gibson A, Lewando‐Hundt G, Blaxter L. Weak and strong publics: drawing on Nancy Fraser to explore parental participation in neonatal networks. Health Expect. 2011; 17: 104– 115. 22040481 PMC5060698
  12. [16]Fraser N. Rethinking the public sphere: a contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy In: Fraser N, ed. Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the ‘Postsocialist’ Condition. London: Routledge; 1997: 109– 142.
  13. [17]Hutchison K, Rogers W, Entwistle VA. Addressing deficits and injustices: the potential epistemic contributions of patients to research. Health Care Anal. 2016. doi: 10.1007/s10728‐016‐0323‐5. 27277736 · DOI
  14. [18]Callaghan GD, Wistow G. Publics, patients, citizens, consumers? Power and decision‐making in primary health care. Public Adm. 2006; 84: 583– 601.
  15. [19]Lukes S. Power: A Radical View. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2005.
  16. [21]Bourdieu P. What makes a social class? On the theoretical and practical existence of groups. Berkeley J Sociol. 1987; 32: 1– 17.
  17. [23]Petit‐Zeman S, Locock L. Health care: bring on the evidence. Nature. 2013; 501: 160– 161. 24032134
  18. [24]Rickard W, Purtell R. Finding a way to pay in the UK: methods and mechanisms for paying service users involved in research. Disabil Soc. 2011; 26: 33– 48.
  19. [26]MacLean A, Kleykamp M. Coming home: attitudes toward U.S. veterans returning from Iraq. Soc Probl. 2014; 61: 131– 154.
  20. [29]Ives J, Damery S, Redwood S. PPI, paradoxes and Plato: who's sailing the ship? J Med Ethics. 2012; 39: 181– 185. 22267385
  21. [30]Staley K. There is no paradox with PPI in research. J Med Ethics. 2013; 39: 186– 187. 23288267
  22. [31]Dowding K. Three‐dimensional power: a discussion of Steven Lukes’ ‘power: a radical view’. Polit Stud Rev. 2006; 4: 136– 145.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Locock, L., Boylan, A., Snow, R., & Staniszewska, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Royal College of Nursing (GB)
Corresponding author
Boylan, Anne‐Marie
Venue
Health Expectations
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-11-24
Volume
20
Issue
5
Pages
836-844
ISSN
  • 1369-6513 (ISSN-L)
  • 1369-7625
OpenAlex
W2550381095
Cited by
128
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 6
FWCI
19.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Expectations (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
  • Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health Research
  • Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust
  • University Of Oxford
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Community Health and Development
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
patient and public involvement, symbolic capital, power relations, health research, knowledge co-production, illness experience, disease knowledge, caregivers, researcher reflexivity
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Community Participation, Female, Group Processes, Health Services Research, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Participation, Patients, Perception, Social Support, Caregivers, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review