The power of symbolic capital in patient and public involvement in health research
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Although lay knowledge was intended to be valued on its own terms, the LR gradually positioned herself as an equal member of the research team, reflecting immersion in the academic environment.
“Although lay knowledge was intended to be valued on its own terms [33], the LR gradually positioned herself as an equal member of the research team, reflecting immersion in the academic environment.”
From Layering perspectives: a structured approach to meaningful patient and public involvement and engagement in the RETURN dental trial (2026) · cites this paper as [33]
Over time, perspectives may become increasingly shaped by involvement in research, creating a risk that some of the authenticity of the patient or public perspective is lost.
“Additionally, over time, perspectives may become increasingly shaped by involvement in research, creating a risk that some of the authenticity of the patient or public perspective is lost [33].”
From Layering perspectives: a structured approach to meaningful patient and public involvement and engagement in the RETURN dental trial (2026) · cites this paper as [33]
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
Bourdieu, P. (1990) · doi:10.1515/9781503621749 · Cited by 17,271 · see citing works
Brett, J., Staniszewska, S., Mockford, C., Herron‐Marx, S., Hughes, J., Tysall, C., & Suleman, R. (2014) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x · Cited by 1,598 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 22
- [1]Coulter A. Engaging Patients in Healthcare. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2011.
- [2]Berwick DM. What ‘patient‐centered’ should mean: confessions of an extremist. Health Aff. 2009; 28: w555– w565. 19454528
- [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]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]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]Thornton S. Beyond rhetoric: we need a strategy for patient involvement in the health service. Br Med J. 2014; 348: g4072. 24957899
- [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]Beresford P. User involvement in research and evaluation: liberation or regulation? Soc Policy Soc. 2002; 1: 95– 105.
- [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
- [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
- [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
- [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.
- [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
- [18]Callaghan GD, Wistow G. Publics, patients, citizens, consumers? Power and decision‐making in primary health care. Public Adm. 2006; 84: 583– 601.
- [19]Lukes S. Power: A Radical View. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2005.
- [21]Bourdieu P. What makes a social class? On the theoretical and practical existence of groups. Berkeley J Sociol. 1987; 32: 1– 17.
- [23]Petit‐Zeman S, Locock L. Health care: bring on the evidence. Nature. 2013; 501: 160– 161. 24032134
- [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.
- [26]MacLean A, Kleykamp M. Coming home: attitudes toward U.S. veterans returning from Iraq. Soc Probl. 2014; 61: 131– 154.
- [29]Ives J, Damery S, Redwood S. PPI, paradoxes and Plato: who's sailing the ship? J Med Ethics. 2012; 39: 181– 185. 22267385
- [30]Staley K. There is no paradox with PPI in research. J Med Ethics. 2013; 39: 186– 187. 23288267
- [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
Smits, D.-W., van Meeteren, K., Klem, M., Alsem, M., & Ketelaar, M. (2020) · Research Involvement and Engagement · doi:10.1186/s40900-020-00188-4 · Cited by 295 · see citing works
Patient and public involvement in the design of clinical trials: An overview of systematic reviews
Price, A., Albarqouni, L., Kirkpatrick, J., Clarke, M., Liew, S. M., Roberts, N., & Burls, A. (2018) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/jep.12805 · Cited by 234 · see citing works
- 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
- PMC
- PMC5600212
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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