IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i10p5758-d1142363.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Researcher Perceptions of Involving Consumers in Health Research in Australia: A Qualitative Study

Author

Listed:
  • Joan Carlini

    (Department of Marketing, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD 4111, Australia
    Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Gold Coast, QLD 4222, Australia)

  • Rachel Muir

    (Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Gold Coast, QLD 4222, Australia
    School of Nursing & Midwifery, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD 4111, Australia
    Department of Emergency Medicine, Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service, Gold Coast, QLD 4215, Australia)

  • Annette McLaren-Kennedy

    (School of Nursing & Midwifery, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD 4111, Australia)

  • Laurie Grealish

    (Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Gold Coast, QLD 4222, Australia
    School of Nursing & Midwifery, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD 4111, Australia
    Nursing & Midwifery Education and Research, Gold Coast Health, Southport, QLD 4227, Australia)

Abstract

There is growing recognition internationally of the importance of involving consumers, patients, and the public in research. This is being driven by political mandates for policies, funding, and governance that demand genuine and meaningful engagement with consumers. There are many potential benefits to involving consumers in research, including an increased relevance to patient needs, improved quality and outcomes, and enhanced public confidence in research. However, the current literature highlights that efforts to incorporate their contributions are often tokenistic and there is a limited understanding of the psychological factors that can impact researcher attitudes, intentions, and behaviours when working with consumers in research. To address this gap, this study conducted 25 semi-structured interviews with health researchers in Australia using the qualitative case study method. The study aim was to explore the underlying influences on researcher behaviour when involving consumers in health research. The results identified several factors that influence researchers’ behaviour, including better quality research, emotional connection and the humanisation of research, and a shift in research culture and expectations as major drivers. However, beliefs that consumers would hinder research and must be protected from risks, paternalism, and a lack of researcher skills and resources were identified as major barriers. This article presents a theory of planned behaviour for consumer involvement in the health research model. The model offers a valuable tool for policymakers and practitioners to understand the factors that influence researcher behaviours. It can also serve as a framework for future research in this area.

Suggested Citation

  • Joan Carlini & Rachel Muir & Annette McLaren-Kennedy & Laurie Grealish, 2023. "Researcher Perceptions of Involving Consumers in Health Research in Australia: A Qualitative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(10), pages 1-16, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:10:p:5758-:d:1142363
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/10/5758/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/10/5758/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Boote, Jonathan & Telford, Rosemary & Cooper, Cindy, 2002. "Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 213-236, August.
    2. Xin Qi & Huaming Yu & Angelika Ploeger, 2020. "Exploring Influential Factors Including COVID-19 on Green Food Purchase Intentions and the Intention–Behaviour Gap: A Qualitative Study among Consumers in a Chinese Context," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-22, September.
    3. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    4. Louise M. Hassan & Edward Shiu & Deirdre Shaw, 2016. "Who Says There is an Intention–Behaviour Gap? Assessing the Empirical Evidence of an Intention–Behaviour Gap in Ethical Consumption," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 136(2), pages 219-236, June.
    5. Hagger, Martin S. & Polet, Juho & Lintunen, Taru, 2018. "The reasoned action approach applied to health behavior: Role of past behavior and tests of some key moderators using meta-analytic structural equation modeling," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 85-94.
    6. Paulius Yamin & Maria Fei & Saadi Lahlou & Sara Levy, 2019. "Using Social Norms to Change Behavior and Increase Sustainability in the Real World: a Systematic Review of the Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-41, October.
    7. Serrano-Aguilar, P. & Trujillo-Martín, M.M. & Ramos-Goñi, J.M. & Mahtani-Chugani, V. & Perestelo-Pérez, L. & Posada-de la Paz, M., 2009. "Patient involvement in health research: A contribution to a systematic review on the effectiveness of treatments for degenerative ataxias," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 920-925, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Valeria Superti & Cynthia Houmani & Ralph Hansmann & Ivo Baur & Claudia R. Binder, 2021. "Strategies for a Circular Economy in the Construction and Demolition Sector: Identifying the Factors Affecting the Recommendation of Recycled Concrete," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-32, April.
    2. Diane Pelly & Orla Doyle, 2022. "Nudging in the workplace: increasing participation in employee EDI wellness events," Working Papers 202208, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    3. Anne Christensen & Jane Cote & Claire Kamm Latham, 2018. "Developing Ethical Confidence: The Impact of Action-Oriented Ethics Instruction in an Accounting Curriculum," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 153(4), pages 1157-1175, December.
    4. Amir H. Pakpour & Cheng-Kuan Lin & Mahdi Safdari & Chung-Ying Lin & Shun-Hua Chen & Kyra Hamilton, 2021. "Using an Integrated Social Cognition Model to Explain Green Purchasing Behavior among Adolescents," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-16, December.
    5. Sheeran, Paschal & Conner, Mark, 2019. "Degree of reasoned action predicts increased intentional control and reduced habitual control over health behaviors," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 68-74.
    6. Frommeyer, Britta & Wagner, Elisa & Hossiep, C. Richard & Schewe, Gerhard, 2022. "The utility of intention as a proxy for sustainable buying behavior – A necessary condition analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 201-213.
    7. Rahul Govind & Jatinder Jit Singh & Nitika Garg & Shachi D’Silva, 2019. "Not Walking the Walk: How Dual Attitudes Influence Behavioral Outcomes in Ethical Consumption," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(4), pages 1195-1214, April.
    8. Bullinger, Angelika C. & Rass, Matthias & Adamczyk, Sabrina & Moeslein, Kathrin M. & Sohn, Stefan, 2012. "Open innovation in health care: Analysis of an open health platform," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 165-175.
    9. Dirk C. Moosmayer & Yanyan Chen & Susannah M. Davis, 2019. "Deeds Not Words: A Cosmopolitan Perspective on the Influences of Corporate Sustainability and NGO Engagement on the Adoption of Sustainable Products in China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 158(1), pages 135-154, August.
    10. Cristina Longo & Avi Shankar & Peter Nuttall, 2019. "“It’s Not Easy Living a Sustainable Lifestyle”: How Greater Knowledge Leads to Dilemmas, Tensions and Paralysis," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(3), pages 759-779, February.
    11. Lortie, Jason & Cox, Kevin C. & Roundy, Philip T., 2022. "Social impact models, legitimacy perceptions, and consumer responses to social ventures," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 312-321.
    12. Henri Kuokkanen & William Sun, 2020. "Companies, Meet Ethical Consumers: Strategic CSR Management to Impact Consumer Choice," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 166(2), pages 403-423, October.
    13. Sara de Sio & Alessandra Zamagni & Giulia Casu & Paola Gremigni, 2022. "Green Trust as a Mediator in the Relationship between Green Advertising Skepticism, Environmental Knowledge, and Intention to Buy Green Food," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-15, December.
    14. Ting Chi & Anastasia Frattali & Hang Liu & Yini Chen, 2023. "Regenerated Cellulose Fibers (RCFs) for Future Apparel Sustainability: Insights from the U.S. Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-13, March.
    15. Brown, Daniel J. & Hagger, Martin S. & Hamilton, Kyra, 2020. "The mediating role of constructs representing reasoned-action and automatic processes on the past behavior-future behavior relationship," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    16. Krause, Marlen S. & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2019. "The intention of companies to invest in biodiversity and ecosystem services credits through an online-marketplace," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    17. Barbara Borusiak & Andrzej Szymkowiak & Bartłomiej Pierański & Katarzyna Szalonka, 2021. "The Impact of Environmental Concern on Intention to Reduce Consumption of Single-Use Bottled Water," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-16, April.
    18. Hsiu‐Hua Chang & Wei‐Jen Chuang, 2021. "Encourage stakeholder engagement in sustainable development: Drivers of consumers themselves benefits and society welfares," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 748-762, March.
    19. Wang, Mingliang & Gong, Shunlong & Liang, Luyu & Bai, Li & Weng, Zhenlin & Tang, Jin, 2023. "Norms triumph over self-interest! The role of perceived values and different norms on sustainable agricultural practices," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    20. Shah, Sayed Kifayat & Zhongjun, Tang, 2021. "Elaborating on the consumer’s intention–behavior gap regarding 5G technology: The moderating role of the product market-creation ability," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:10:p:5758-:d:1142363. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.