Brazilian Patient Organizations and Regenerative Medicine: Selective Comparisons with the Experience of the United Kingdom

α
Liliana Acero
Liliana Acero

Send Message

To: Author

Brazilian Patient Organizations and Regenerative Medicine: Selective Comparisons with the Experience of the United Kingdom

Article Fingerprint

ReserarchID

8O17B

Brazilian Patient Organizations and Regenerative Medicine: Selective Comparisons with the Experience of the United Kingdom Banner

AI TAKEAWAY

Connecting with the Eternal Ground
  • English
  • Afrikaans
  • Albanian
  • Amharic
  • Arabic
  • Armenian
  • Azerbaijani
  • Basque
  • Belarusian
  • Bengali
  • Bosnian
  • Bulgarian
  • Catalan
  • Cebuano
  • Chichewa
  • Chinese (Simplified)
  • Chinese (Traditional)
  • Corsican
  • Croatian
  • Czech
  • Danish
  • Dutch
  • Esperanto
  • Estonian
  • Filipino
  • Finnish
  • French
  • Frisian
  • Galician
  • Georgian
  • German
  • Greek
  • Gujarati
  • Haitian Creole
  • Hausa
  • Hawaiian
  • Hebrew
  • Hindi
  • Hmong
  • Hungarian
  • Icelandic
  • Igbo
  • Indonesian
  • Irish
  • Italian
  • Japanese
  • Javanese
  • Kannada
  • Kazakh
  • Khmer
  • Korean
  • Kurdish (Kurmanji)
  • Kyrgyz
  • Lao
  • Latin
  • Latvian
  • Lithuanian
  • Luxembourgish
  • Macedonian
  • Malagasy
  • Malay
  • Malayalam
  • Maltese
  • Maori
  • Marathi
  • Mongolian
  • Myanmar (Burmese)
  • Nepali
  • Norwegian
  • Pashto
  • Persian
  • Polish
  • Portuguese
  • Punjabi
  • Romanian
  • Russian
  • Samoan
  • Scots Gaelic
  • Serbian
  • Sesotho
  • Shona
  • Sindhi
  • Sinhala
  • Slovak
  • Slovenian
  • Somali
  • Spanish
  • Sundanese
  • Swahili
  • Swedish
  • Tajik
  • Tamil
  • Telugu
  • Thai
  • Turkish
  • Ukrainian
  • Urdu
  • Uzbek
  • Vietnamese
  • Welsh
  • Xhosa
  • Yiddish
  • Yoruba
  • Zulu

Abstract

Patient organizations have become a privileged locus to mediate relations in health care between state and society. This study analyses the roles played in regenerative medicine by Brazilian disease-specific and rare disease patient organizations and draws comparisons with those of the United Kingdom. International public engagement, citizen science, and patient-centered medicine policies are briefly discussed as well as the organizing models of patient associations, the relations of ‘biosociality’, and the construction of alternative’civicepistemologies’ or tacit forms of knowing. Qualitative analysis is based on documentary information on the sector, secondary data from the organizations’ websites and 18 online interviews with representatives of Brazilian patient organizations. These data show that diseasespecific organizations mainly support patients and contribute to their treatments -an auxiliary operational model -and train members to become informed interlocutors -an emancipatory model. By contrast, most rare disease associations tend to form partnerships with researchers to reformulate treatments and impact public policy.

References

75 Cites in Article
  1. Liliana Acero (2010). Debatendo as pesquisas com células-tronco no Brasil e no Reino Unido.
  2. L Acero (2010). Science, public policy and engagement: Debates on stem cell research in Brazil.
  3. Liliana Acero,Diogo Antunes (2011). Conquistas e desafios das pesquisas com Células-Tronco no Brasil.
  4. L Acero (2011). Pesquisas com Células-Tronco no Brasil: Perspectivas do Progresso Científico e dos Conhecimentos Especializados e Leigos.
  5. L Acero (2019). Regulação internacional e governança na medicina regenerativa: trajetórias do Reino Unido e a União Europeia e repercussões para a saúde coletiva global.
  6. Liliana Acero (2020). Uma análise de matérias televisivas em ciência: o caso da medicina regenerativa no Brasil.
  7. L Acero (2020). Enquadramentos na medicina os relatos recentes na imprensa brasileira Revista de Comunicação.
  8. Liliana Acero (2020). Qualidade das notícias em ciência e medicina: a imprensa na medicina regenerativa no Brasil.
  9. Heloise Agreli,Marina Peduzzi,Mariana Silva (2016). Atenção centrada no paciente na prática interprofissional colaborativa.
  10. W Araujo Aureliano (2018). Trajetórias Terapêuticas Familiares: doenças raras hereditárias como sofrimento de longa duração.
  11. Patrick Biernacki,Dan Waldorf (1981). Snowball Sampling: Problems and Techniques of Chain Referral Sampling.
  12. S Blume (2000). Land of hope and glory. Exploring cochlear implantation in the Netherlands.
  13. D Bonfada,J Cavalcante,D Araujo,J Guimarães (2012). A integralidade da atenção à saúde como eixo da organização tecnológica nos serviços.
  14. R Bonnie,J Shirk,T Phillips,A Wiggins (2014). Next Steps for Citizen Science.
  15. Thomasina Borkman (1976). Experiential Knowledge: A New Concept for the Analysis of Self-Help Groups.
  16. Thomasina Borkman (1997). A selective look at self-help groups in the United States.
  17. Brasil (2014). Unknown Title.
  18. (2014). Jackson, Sir (William) Roland (Cedric), (born 9 Jan. 1954), science historian; Executive Chair, Sciencewise, 2012–16.
  19. M Callon,P Lascoumes,Y Barthe (2001). Agir dans un monde incertain.
  20. Michel Callon (2003). The Increasing Involvement of Concerned Groups in R & D Policies: What Lessons for Public Powers?.
  21. M Callon,P Lascoumes,Y Barthe (2011). Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy.
  22. Timothy Caulfield,Amy Mcguire (2012). Athletes’ Use of Unproven Stem Cell Therapies: Adding to Inappropriate Media Hype?.
  23. R Cavalcante,P Calixto,M Pinheiro (2014). ANÁLISE DE CONTEÚDO: considerações gerais, relações com a pergunta de pesquisa, possibilidades e limitações do método.
  24. H Collins,Robert Evans (2002). The Third Wave of Science Studies.
  25. Harry Collins,Robert Evans,Martin Weinel (2017). STS as science or politics?.
  26. A Cribb (2011). Involvement, Shared Decision-Making and Medicines.
  27. Donna Dickenson,Marcy Darnovsky (2019). Did a permissive scientific culture encourage the ‘CRISPR babies’ experiment?.
  28. M Dominguez De Lima,A Gilbert,D (2018). Redes de tratamento e as associações de pacientes com doenças raras.
  29. Rebecca Dresser (2001). When Science Offers Salvation.
  30. Leslie Dubbin,Jamie Chang,Janet Shim (2013). Cultural health capital and the interactional dynamics of patient-centered care.
  31. Steven Epstein (1995). The Construction of Lay Expertise: AIDS Activism and the Forging of Credibility in the Reform of Clinical Trials.
  32. Ege (2015). The ethical implications of new health technologies and citizen participation Opinion 29.
  33. Ségolène Aymé (2005). Rare diseases: a priority in public health and research.
  34. P Farmer (2005). Pathologies of power: Health, Human Rights and the New War on the Poor.
  35. Alex Faulkner (2016). Opening the Gateways to Market and Adoption of Regenerative Medicine? The UK Case in Context.
  36. J Gardner (2017). Patient-centered medicine and the broad clinical gaze: Measuring outcomes in pediatric deep brain stimulation.
  37. Donna Haraway (1988). Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.
  38. Dafne Horovitz,Victor De Faria Ferraz,Sulamis Dain,Antonia Marques-De-Faria (2013). Genetic services and testing in Brazil.
  39. Maja Horst,Mike Michael (2011). On the Shoulders of Idiots: Re-thinking Science Communication as ‘Event’.
  40. Alan Irwin (1995). Citizen Science.
  41. Claudio Pogliano (2003). ALAN IRWIN and BRIAN WYNNE (eds.), Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996, 232 pp..
  42. Alan Irwin,Torben Jensen,Kevin Jones (2013). The good, the bad and the perfect: Criticizing engagement practice.
  43. P Keating,A Cambrosio (2003). Biomedical Platforms. Realigning the Normal and the Pathological in Late-Twentieth-Century Medicine.
  44. Hiromi Kobori,Janis Dickinson,Izumi Washitani,Ryo Sakurai,Tatsuya Amano,Naoya Komatsu,Wataru Kitamura,Shinichi Takagawa,Kazuo Koyama,Takao Ogawara,A Miller‐rushing (2016). Citizen science: a new approach to advance ecology, education, and conservation.
  45. (2005). Science and citizens.
  46. Elisa Liberati,Mara Gorli,Lorenzo Moja,Laura Galuppo,Silvio Ripamonti,Giuseppe Scaratti (2015). Exploring the practice of patient centered care: The role of ethnography and reflexivity.
  47. Michelle Mcgowan,Suparna Choudhury,Eric Juengst,Marcie Lambrix,Richard Settersten,Jennifer Fishman (2016). “Let’s pull these technologies out of the ivory tower”: The politics, ethos, and ironies of participant-driven genomic research.
  48. Phil Macnaghten,Jason Chilvers (2013). The Future of Science Governance: Publics, Policies, Practices.
  49. F Mazanderani,J Kelly,A Ducey (2018). From embodied risk to embodying hope: Therapeutic experimentation and experiential information sharing in a contested intervention for Multiple Sclerosis.
  50. D Mcmahon (2014). The global industry for unproven stem cell interventions and stem cell tourism Tissue Engineering and.
  51. N Mead,P Bower (2000). Patient-centredness: a conceptual framework and review of the empirical literature.
  52. Joanna Meira,Angelina Acosta (2009). Políticas de saúde pública aplicadas à genética médica no Brasil.
  53. Jussara Oliveira (2009). Da concepção a aprovação : a trajetória da Política Nacional de Atenção Integral à Saúde da Criança.
  54. Ávila Vidal,Vania Santos,José Passos,Clarice Petramale (2015). Priorização de protocolos clínicos para atenção integral às pessoas com doenças raras: análise de decisão multicritério.
  55. (2013). Not all of us work in the NHS.
  56. C Novas (2008). Biosocialities, Genetics and the Social Sciences.
  57. Carlos Novas (2012). Orphan Drugs, Patient Activism and Contemporary Healthcare.
  58. H Nowotny,I Scott,S Gibbons (2001). Rethinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty.
  59. Nunez Moreira,M Nascimento,D Horovitz,A Martins (2018). Quando ser raro se torna um valor: o ativismo político por direitos das pessoas com doenças raras no Sistema Único de Saúde.
  60. Janine Pierret (2003). The illness experience: state of knowledge and perspectives for research.
  61. Deirdre Pinto,Dominique Martin,Richard Chenhall (2018). Chasing cures: Rewards and risks for rare disease patient organisations involved in research.
  62. Vololona Rabeharisoa (2003). The struggle against neuromuscular diseases in France and the emergence of the “partnership model” of patient organisation.
  63. Vololona Rabeharisoa,Tiago Moreira,Madeleine Akrich (2014). Evidence-based activism: Patients’, users’ and activists’ groups in knowledge society.
  64. Paul Rabinow (1996). Artificiality and Enlightenment: From Sociobiology to Biosociality.
  65. P Savaget,L Acero (2017). Plurality in understandings of innovation, sociotechnical progress and sustainable development. An analysis of OCDE expert narratives.
  66. Brian Salter,Yinhua Zhou,Saheli Datta (2015). Hegemony in the marketplace of biomedical innovation: Consumer demand and stem cell science.
  67. Celina Souza (2006). Políticas públicas: uma revisão da literatura.
  68. J Souza Soares,A (2012). Ligações perigosas: indústria farmacêutica, associações de pacientes e as batalhas judiciais por acesso a medicamentos Physis.
  69. Andy Stirling (2008). “Opening Up” and “Closing Down”.
  70. P Van Zwanenberg,E Millstone (2005). BSE: risk, science, and governance.
  71. (2020). Health, Technology and Society.
  72. Paul Wicks,Eileen Mack Thorley,Kristina Simacek,Christopher Curran,Cathy Emmas (2018). Scaling PatientsLikeMe via a “Generalized Platform” for Members with Chronic Illness: Web-Based Survey Study of Benefits Arising.
  73. Simon Williams,Michael Calnan (1996). The ‘limits’ of medicalization?: Modern medicine and the lay populace in ‘late’ modernity.
  74. Brian Wynne (1993). Public uptake of science: a case for institutional reflexivity.
  75. B Wynne (1995). Public Understanding of Science.

Funding

No external funding was declared for this work.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

No ethics committee approval was required for this article type.

Data Availability

Not applicable for this article.

How to Cite This Article

Liliana Acero. 2021. \u201cBrazilian Patient Organizations and Regenerative Medicine: Selective Comparisons with the Experience of the United Kingdom\u201d. Global Journal of Medical Research - K: Interdisciplinary GJMR-K Volume 21 (GJMR Volume 21 Issue K4): .

Download Citation

Journal Specifications

Crossref Journal DOI 10.17406/gjmra

Print ISSN 0975-5888

e-ISSN 2249-4618

Keywords
Classification
GJMR-K Classification: NLMC Code: QU 450
Version of record

v1.2

Issue date

May 30, 2021

Language
en
Experiance in AR

Explore published articles in an immersive Augmented Reality environment. Our platform converts research papers into interactive 3D books, allowing readers to view and interact with content using AR and VR compatible devices.

Read in 3D

Your published article is automatically converted into a realistic 3D book. Flip through pages and read research papers in a more engaging and interactive format.

Article Matrices
Total Views: 1957
Total Downloads: 879
2026 Trends
Related Research

Published Article

Patient organizations have become a privileged locus to mediate relations in health care between state and society. This study analyses the roles played in regenerative medicine by Brazilian disease-specific and rare disease patient organizations and draws comparisons with those of the United Kingdom. International public engagement, citizen science, and patient-centered medicine policies are briefly discussed as well as the organizing models of patient associations, the relations of ‘biosociality’, and the construction of alternative’civicepistemologies’ or tacit forms of knowing. Qualitative analysis is based on documentary information on the sector, secondary data from the organizations’ websites and 18 online interviews with representatives of Brazilian patient organizations. These data show that diseasespecific organizations mainly support patients and contribute to their treatments -an auxiliary operational model -and train members to become informed interlocutors -an emancipatory model. By contrast, most rare disease associations tend to form partnerships with researchers to reformulate treatments and impact public policy.

Our website is actively being updated, and changes may occur frequently. Please clear your browser cache if needed. For feedback or error reporting, please email [email protected]

Request Access

Please fill out the form below to request access to this research paper. Your request will be reviewed by the editorial or author team.
X

Quote and Order Details

Contact Person

Invoice Address

Notes or Comments

This is the heading

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

High-quality academic research articles on global topics and journals.

Brazilian Patient Organizations and Regenerative Medicine: Selective Comparisons with the Experience of the United Kingdom

Liliana Acero
Liliana Acero

Research Journals