In the field of participatory health research (PHR) and related action research paradigms, limitations of standard ethical codes and institutional review processes have been identified. PHR is highly situational and relational, part of a hierarchical health care context and therefore ethics of care has been suggested as a helpful theoretical approach that emphasises responsibilities and relationships. The purpose of this article is to explore the value of Tronto's second-generation ethics of care for reflection on ethical challenges experienced by academic researchers. Using the design of a collaborative auto-ethnography, this article starts from a story of a researcher who deals with dilemmas in responsibility to care for co-researchers with lived experiences during a PHR study in the field of acute psychiatric care. By analysing the challenges together with all co-researchers, using a framework of ethics of care, we discovered the importance of self-care and existential safety for an ethical PHR practice. The reflexive meta-narrative shows that the ethics of care lens is useful to untangle moral dilemmas in all participatory researchrelated paradigms for all engaged.

No abstract

Health researchers increasingly work with patients in a participatory fashion. Active patient involvement throughout the research process can provide epistemic justice to patients who have often only had an informant role in traditional health research. This study aims to conduct participatory research on patient experiences to create a solid research agenda with patients and discuss it with relevant stakeholders. We followed a participatory research design in 18 sub-studies, including interviews and group sessions (n = 404 patients), and dialogue sessions (n = 367 professionals and directors in healthcare and social work, municipality civil servants, and funding agencies) on patient experiences with psychiatric care, community care, daycare, public health, and social work. Findings from the eight-year study show that four priorities stood out: attention for misuse of power and abuse; meaningful participation; non-human assistance, and peer support. Moreover, that: (1) patients, based on their experiences, prioritize different topics than experts; (2) most topics are trans-diagnostic and point to the value of a cross-disability approach; and (3) the priorities of patients are all too easily dismissed and require ethics work to prevent epistemic injustice. Long-term investment in a transdisciplinary community of practice offers a solid basis for addressing patient-centered topics and may impact the quality of life of people living with chronic illness, disability, or vulnerability.