Research Involvement and Engagement (Jun 2024)

Why publish? An interview study exploring patient innovators’ reasons for and experiences of scientific publishing

  • Marie Dahlberg,
  • Jamie Linnea Luckhaus,
  • Henna Hasson,
  • Hanna Jansson,
  • Madelen Lek,
  • Carl Savage,
  • Sara Riggare,
  • Carolina Wannheden

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-024-00589-9
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 10, no. 1
pp. 1 – 11

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Scientific publications featuring patient-driven innovations (i.e., innovations that are developed and driven by patients or informal caregivers) are increasing. By understanding patient innovators’ experiences of research publication, the scientific community may be better prepared to support or partner with patient innovators. Thus, the aim of this study was to explore patient innovators’ reasons for and experiences of authoring scientific publications about their innovations. Methods Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 international patient innovators from three continents who had published in scientific journals. Participants were identified through a scoping review on patient-driven innovations and snowball sampling. Interviews were conducted from June to October 2022 and the data was analyzed using the Framework Method. Findings Participants’ reasons for publishing in scientific journals were to strengthen the roles and voices of patients and informal caregivers, and to get recognition for their innovations. Some published as a response to serendipitous opportunities. Several positive experiences were reported: collaborations defined by transparency, mutual respect, and meaningful participation; learning and competence development; and gained confidence regarding the value of lived experiences in research. Participants also reported negative experiences, such as cultural barriers manifested as conservatism in academia and power imbalances between participants and researchers, and structural barriers regarding academic affiliations and research funding. Conclusions Despite progress in increasing patient and public involvement in research and publication, our study found that patient innovators still experience barriers. This suggests that continued efforts are needed to facilitate contributions from patient innovators and other public actors to the production of relevant and meaningful research.

Keywords