Are we leaving someone behind? A critical discourse analysis on the understanding of public participation among people with experiences of participatory research.

Participatory research (PR) is on the rise. In Spain, PR is scarce in the field of health, although there is an increasing interest in the matter. A comprehensive understanding of the meanings and practical implications of "public participation" is essential to promote participation in health research. The aim of the study is to explore the discursive positions on PR among individuals with experience in participatory processes in different areas and how this understanding translates into practice. We conducted a critical discourse analysis of 21 individuals with experience in PR and participatory processes (13 women, 8 men), mainly from the field of health and other areas of knowledge. Sixteen were Spanish and the rest were from the United Kingdom (3), United States (1), and Canada (1). Interviews were conducted in person or by telephone. The fieldwork was conducted between March 2019 and November 2019. The dominant discourses on public participation are situated along two axes situated on a continuum: the purpose of public participation and how power should be distributed in public participation processes. The first is instrumental public participation, which sees participatory research as a tool to improve research results and focuses on institutional interests and power-decision making is hold by researchers and institutions. The second, is transformative public participation, with a focus on social change and an equitable sharing of decision-making power between the public and researchers. All discursive positions stated that they do not carry out specific strategies to include the most socially disadvantaged individuals or groups. A shift in the scientific approach about knowledge, along with time and resources, are required to move towards a more balanced power distribution in the processes involving the public.

Factores que influyen en la elección de la especialidad de Medicina Familiar y Comunitaria / Elements influencing the election of Family and Community Medicine

Objetivo: Analizar las percepciones, motivaciones y razones que influyen al elegir la especialidad de Medicina Familiar y Comunitaria (MFyC), y explorar posibles propuestas de cambio sobre el modelo sanitario y la formación universitaria. Diseño: Estudio cualitativo descriptivo-interpretativo de perspectiva socioconstructivista. Emplazamiento: Unidades docentes del Área Metropolitana de Barcelona. Participantes y contexto: Se contactó con 55 residentes de primer año de MFyC pertenecientes a la U.D. MFyC Barcelona Ciutat ICS vía telefónica, y se reclutaron 25 participantes que fueron segmentadas en dos grupos según hubieran escogido MFyC como primera opción o no. Mediante muestreo en bola de nieve, se reclutaron once residentes de primer año de otras especialidades. Método: Constitución de tres grupos focales: (a) MFyC como primera opción, (b) no como primera opción y (c) otras especialidades. Desarrollo de entrevistas grupales semiestructuradas de dos horas de duración. Codificación inductiva con una primera triangulación intra-grupo y una segunda triangulación inter-grupo, posterior análisis de contenido temático. Resultados: La elección de plaza MIR representa un gran hito académico y es pensado como determinante para el futuro tanto profesional como personal. Así, se dibuja como resultado de una compleja trama de elementos influyentes, destacando la formación universitaria, el modelo sanitario, las expectativas laborales y la valoración social de la especialidad. Poniendo en relación los diferentes factores, se pone de manifiesto el fenómeno llamado desprestigio de la AP. Conclusión: La especialidad de MFyC no será atractiva en un sistema sanitario y formativo hospitalo-céntrico que no apuesta por la AP organizativa ni económicamente.(AU)

Aim: To analyze the perceptions, motives and reasons that influence the election of Family and Community Medicine (FCM) speciality, thus exploring possible proposals for change in the health system model and university training. Design: Descriptive–interpretative qualitative research from a socio-constructivist perspective. Emplacement: Medical speciality training departments in the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona. Participants and context: 55 first year junior doctors belonging to the FCM Barcelona Ciutat ICS training department were contacted; 25 agreed to participate. They were segmented into two groups depending on if the choice of FCM had been their first option or not. Through snowball sampling 11 more junior doctors from other specialities were recruited. Method: Three focus groups were formed: (a) first choice FCM, (b) not first choice FCM and (c) other specialities. Semi-structured 2-h long interviews took place with each of the groups. Literal transcription and inductive codification with a first triangulation within each group and a second one between the three of them and thematic content analyses. Results: The choice of speciality is lived as an academic milestone and is thought determining professional and personally. It is a complex weave of influencing elements but some of main factors were university training, health system model, professional prospects and the social appreciation of the speciality. Analyzing the relation between these elements puts light on a phenomena we have called “the discredit of Primary Care (PC)”. Conclusion: The FCM specialty will not be attractive in a hospital-centric health and training system that does not bet on PC organizationally or economically.(AU)

[Elements influencing the election of Family and Community Medicine]. / Factores que influyen en la elección de la especialidad de Medicina Familiar y Comunitaria.

AIM: To analyze the perceptions, motives and reasons that influence the election of Family and Community Medicine (FCM) speciality, thus exploring possible proposals for change in the health system model and university training. DESIGN: Descriptive-interpretative qualitative research from a socio-constructivist perspective. EMPLACEMENT: Medical speciality training departments in the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona. PARTICIPANTS AND CONTEXT: 55 first year junior doctors belonging to the FCM Barcelona Ciutat ICS training department were contacted; 25 agreed to participate. They were segmented into two groups depending on if the choice of FCM had been their first option or not. Through snowball sampling 11 more junior doctors from other specialities were recruited. METHOD: Three focus groups were formed: (a) first choice FCM, (b) not first choice FCM and (c) other specialities. Semi-structured 2-h long interviews took place with each of the groups. Literal transcription and inductive codification with a first triangulation within each group and a second one between the three of them and thematic content analyses. RESULTS: The choice of speciality is lived as an academic milestone and is thought determining professional and personally. It is a complex weave of influencing elements but some of main factors were university training, health system model, professional prospects and the social appreciation of the speciality. Analyzing the relation between these elements puts light on a phenomena we have called "the discredit of Primary Care (PC)". CONCLUSION: The FCM specialty will not be attractive in a hospital-centric health and training system that does not bet on PC organizationally or economically.

Participación pública en los proyectos de investigación: formas de crear conocimiento colectivo en salud / Public participation in research projects: ways of creating collective knowledge in health

La participación pública en los proyectos de investigación es un ámbito emergente en España y en los países latinoamericanos. Existen cinco tipos de proyectos según el grado de implicación que las personas participantes tienen en los procesos: contributivos, colaborativos, cocreados, contractuales e independientes. Para promover la participación pública en los equipos de investigación del ámbito de la salud es necesario redefinir sus prácticas y sus competencias. Para ello, puede ser útil formularse preguntas en las diferentes fases de la investigación, así como desarrollar estrategias que incluyan audiencias que cuenten con menos canales de participación en pro de favorecer la equidad en salud. Esta forma de hacer ciencia permite reunir experiencia y experticia priorizando y adecuando la investigación a las necesidades de la población, lo que aumenta su capacidad transformadora y el impacto social de sus resultados

Public participation in research projects is an emerging area in Spain and Latin American countries. There are five types of projects according to the degree of involvement that the participants have in the processes: contributory, collaborative, co-created, contractual and independent. In order to promote public participation in health research teams, their practices and competencies need to be redefined. To this end, it may be useful to ask questions in the different phases of the research, as well as to develop strategies that include audiences that have fewer channels of participation in favour of favouring equity in health. This way of doing science allows gathering experience and expertise prioritizing and adapting the research to the needs of the population, which increases its transforming capacity and the social impact of its results

[Public participation in research projects: ways of creating collective knowledge in health]. / Participación pública en los proyectos de investigación: formas de crear conocimiento colectivo en salud.

Public participation in research projects is an emerging area in Spain and Latin American countries. There are five types of projects according to the degree of involvement that the participants have in the processes: contributory, collaborative, co-created, contractual and independent. In order to promote public participation in health research teams, their practices and competencies need to be redefined. To this end, it may be useful to ask questions in the different phases of the research, as well as to develop strategies that include audiences that have fewer channels of participation in favour of favouring equity in health. This way of doing science allows gathering experience and expertise prioritizing and adapting the research to the needs of the population, which increases its transforming capacity and the social impact of its results.