Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
PPI Or User Involvement: Taking stock from a service user perspective in the twenty first century
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
PPI Or User Involvement: Taking stock from a service user perspective in the twenty first century
Do you wish to request the book?
PPI Or User Involvement: Taking stock from a service user perspective in the twenty first century
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
PPI Or User Involvement: Taking stock from a service user perspective in the twenty first century
2020
Overview
The timescales provided relate to the UK and can vary with different countries. [...]Working for universal suffrage in representative democracy and the achievement of social rights, like the right to decent housing, education and health, from the late nineteenth to mid twentieth century; * Provisions for participatory democracy and community development, associated with the 1960s and 70s * Specific provisions for participation in health and social care, from the1980s through to the first decade of the twenty first century * State reaction and service user-led renewal as conflicts and competing agendas develop, from 2010 onwards [6]. The third stage identified approximates to UK developments like the setting up of the National Institute for Health Research INVOLVE and increasing requirements for PPI in research and provision. [...]one critique dismisses PPI as a ‘zombie’ policy, unproductive for change and improvement [17]. What this also means crucially is that if an individual has direct, lived experience of problems like disability or poverty, or of oppression and discrimination, of cuts and ‘austerity’, of racism and sexism, when such traditional positivist research values are accepted, what they say – their accounts and narratives - will be seen as having less legitimacy and authority. Because people experiencing hardship will be seen as ‘close to the problem’, they cannot claim they are ‘neutral’, ‘objective’ or ‘distant’ from it.
