Category: Featured

  • Medverkan med mening – lärdomar och utblickar från Samka-konferensen

    Medverkan med mening – lärdomar och utblickar från Samka-konferensen

    Den 23 april 2025 var jag med och arrangerade den digitala slutkonferensen för projektet Samka – ett initiativ för att främja samverkan med patienter och närstående inom forskning, vård och omsorg. Konferensens tema var talande: “Medverkan med mening – Hur kan Sverige framtidssäkra en genuin patient- och närståendesamverkan?” Hela konferensen spelades in och de åtta delarna finns nu tillgängliga på https://www.samka.se/. Innehållet är textat på svenska och textningen aktiveras med hjälp av knappar i filmrutans nederkant (knappen med CC på och den direkt till höger). Textningen är gjord automatiskt, jag hoppas det går att ha överseende med eventuella skrivfel.

    Under mina två presentationer fick jag möjlighet att dela både reflektioner från projektets två år (länk direkt till den videon) och göra en internationell utblick (länk direkt till den videon). Nedan kan du läsa korta sammanfattningar av respektive presentation.

    🧩 Lärdomar från Samka: Stora ambitioner, blandade förutsättningar

    Min första presentation fokuserade på våra lärdomar från Samka-projektet. Under två år har vi samarbetat över sektorsgränser och försökt göra patient- och närståendesamverkan till något mer konkret än bara fina ord i styrdokument. Några lärdomar blev särskilt tydliga:

    💡 1. Det finns en enorm outnyttjad potential

    I enkäten “Viktigt i vården” (996 svarande) svarade hela 70 % att det är viktigt att få möjlighet att medverka i utvecklingen av vården. Men av dessa så svarade endast en av tre att deras önskan togs emot av vården.

    Detta gap visar att många vill bidra – men inte får chansen.

    💡 2. Ersättning spelar roll

    Att samverka kostar – i tid, energi, och ibland pengar. Därför är det viktigt att se ersättning som en fråga om jämlikhet och respekt. Samka har byggt vidare på den myndighetsgemensamma vägledningen (länk till vägledningen), som föreslår fyra nivåer av engagemang: information, samråd, dialog och partnerskap – med olika typer av ersättning för olika nivåer.

    Ett bra exempel är GPCC:s arbetsgång (länk till dokumentet) där ersättning diskuteras redan från början, i samråd med patientråd och forskare.

    💡 3. Det finns hinder – men inga omöjliga

    Tre utmaningar återkom gång på gång:

    • Terminologi – vad menar vi egentligen med “samverkan”? Alla säger ordet, men menar olika.
    • Utvärdering – Vi behöver tillsammans lära oss mer om hur vi mäter medverkan med mening. Vad funkar bra? Vad funkar mindre bra och hur mäter vi det?
    • Kultur – hur förändrar man en vård- eller forskningsmiljö där patienter inte traditionellt varit medskapare?

    Ytterligare en viktig aspekt är vad man behöver tänka på för att få till medverkan med mening. I Samkas rekommendationer (länk till rekommendationerna här) nämns bland annat att man måste tänka på hierarkier och maktbalanser. För att de som medverkar ska kunna komma till sin fulla rätt så att vår erfarenhetsbaserade kunskap & expertis ska kunna göra maximal nytta så måste man tänka på individuella faktorer, som: vad är personerna intresserade av? Vilken kunskap har de? Och vilken är deras livssituation? En annan viktig sak att tänka på är sjukdomsrelaterade faktorer: Vilka symtom ingår i den aktuella sjukdomen? Ingår tillfälliga eller mer långvariga funktionsnedsättningar? Detta kan medföra behov av vissa anpassningar i samverkansarbetet, för att kompensera för t ex syn- eller hörselnedsättningar, rörelseproblem eller olika nivåer av fatigue. 

    🧭 Internationell utblick: Medverkan med mening enligt WHO och Helsingforsdeklarationen

    I min andra presentation belyste jag hur synen på patienters roll i forskning förändras – inte bara i Sverige, utan globalt. Ett tydligt tecken är uppdateringen av Helsingforsdeklarationen (länk till ett tidigare inlägg), som är den globala etiska grunden för medicinsk forskning. Två avgörande språkliga skiften visar förändringen:

    • Från “subjects” till “participants”
    • Från “vulnerable groups” till “individual, group, and community vulnerability”

    Det är mer än bara semantik – det speglar en ny syn på personer i forskning: som aktiva medskapare, inte passiva försökspersoner.

    Samma anda genomsyrar WHO:s “Framework for meaningful engagement” (länk till vägledningen), som riktar sig till beslutsfattare i hälso- och sjukvård. Där betonas både värdet av medverkan och praktiska verktyg för att få det att hända. Slutsatsen är tydlig: det krävs mer än god vilja – det krävs struktur, resurser och en förändrad kultur.

    Lösningen handlar inte bara om nya policies. Det handlar om lyhördhet, nyfikenhet och ödmjukhet.

    🛤️ Vägen framåt: Från intention till praktik

    Vi vet att patient- och närståendesamverkan kan leda till bättre vård, relevantare forskning och ökad tillit. Det finns stöd i både svensk lag (som patientlagen och hälso- och sjukvårdslagen), i internationella ramverk (WHO, Helsingfors), och i en växande vilja hos patienter.

    Men – som WHO skriver – “much work remains”. Det räcker inte med att säga att vi vill ha “medverkan med mening”. Vi måste skapa förutsättningarna för det – både för patienter och för de professionella som ska bjuda in till samverkan.

    Så låt oss fråga oss själva:

    Har vi satt ord på varför vi vill ha patientmedverkan – och hur vi gör det meningsfullt?

    Jag tror vi kan. Men det kräver både mod och tålamod.

  • Managing medication in PD – both complex and simple?

    Managing medication in PD – both complex and simple?

    Medication management is probably the absolutely most important part of my Parkinson’s disease (PD) selfcare since without my pills, my body would not function. During the day I take meds approximately every three hours to be able to move around, take care of myself and be able to work. When I wake up in the morning, I have not taken any meds for at least 7 hours and my movements are REALLY slow and stiff.

    My approach to PD is that I try to take my meds at the same times every day. I know that other persons with Parkinson’s (PwP) have other approaches and no-one really knows which approach is best, since there has been no research conducted (or at least not published) comparing different approaches (which is actually one of my main reasons for writing this post).

    When I occasionally make changes to my medication regime, I note down dates of the change and what I changed (for example types of meds added/taken away, changes in timings for intakes, and/or changes in combinations of meds for each intake). For example, a few months ago I noticed that I tended to get slightly dyskinetic (a side effect of PD meds, see here) around lunch so I decided to push my second dose of meds 30 minutes and started taking it at 10:00 am instead of 9:30 am. This changed resolved my dyskinesia. These notes are for myself, none of my neurologists have ever asked about changes I have made between visits, they have only shown an interest in my current regimen at the time of the visit. I can completely understand this, they have enough work to do as it is and don’t need more tasks to complete. Of course there is plenty that could be learned from systematically recording individual medication regimes for a large number of persons with Parkinson’s (PwP) including following up the effects of that regimen on an individual level but I have long since accepted that that is probably not the best use of healthcare resources.

    In my role as an academic researcher, I have applied for funding many times over the past decade to address different aspects of how to optimise PD meds on an individual level. Unfortunately my funding applications have not really succeeded despite the fact that this area is extremely under-researched. I think there are several reasons for this apparent disinterest in the field of medication optimisation in PD and I will mention the three at the top of my mind:

    1. Complexity

    PD is SUPER COMPLEX! We have heard this so many times but what does it actually mean? The complexity of PD is multi-layered and there is so much we currently don’t know. We don’t know how and why the condition starts on an individual level, we are not sure about what processes makes the condition progress, and we don’t know why some medications work well for some but do not work as well for others.

    On the level of individual neurologists, I think that many of the clinicians who have made it their profession to help us actually think that medication intakes are already optimized based on available guidelines and their clinical experience. Those guidelines are however based on group-level data, and do not often translate well to individual patients. There is a huge gap between what is measured in research trials (which subsequently forms the basis of guidelines) and what PwP experience in their daily lives.

    One aspect that is often overlooked is that taking medication is not as simple as just swallowing a pill at the right time. It requires remembering (which, ironically, can be difficult when you have a neurodegenerative disease), carrying medication with you at all times, for some PwP also planning around meals, and adjusting for unpredictable factors such as stress, sleep quality, and physical activity. Even something as basic as getting water to take a pill can be a challenge in certain situations. The effort required to consistently take PD medication is far greater than many neurologists or researchers realize.

    Another factor adding to the complexity is that we living with PD are not really interested in taking the pills, we actually have zero interest in the actual pill taking itself. The reason we take them is to get the effect the pills (hopefully) have on reducing our symptoms. But what does healthcare use to evaluate this process? They use medication adherence, meaning if we take our pills in the way our neurologists have prescribed. As far as I know, there are no standardized adherence scales available that take into account the complexity of finding your individual best timings for intakes of meds to achieve the optimal effect.

    And since this complexity doesn’t directly influence the work of neurologists and researchers, it’s not strange that they don’t see the need for research into how to best optimize PD meds.

    2. Money

    The reality is that the use (and non-use) of pharmaceuticals is (almost) entirely driven by money. And currently there is no money to be gained on a corporate level from helping the approximately 10 million PwP in the world getting a better effect from the many pills we take.

    The pharmaceutical industry mostly hinges on developing new drugs, not on optimizing the use of existing ones. This means that the funding available for research favor the discovery of new molecules over the fine-tuning of treatment regimens for individual patients.

    3. Simplicity

    As a person who has spent more time thinking about this A LOT over the past 10 – 15 years, probably more than is healthy…, I have come to the conclusion that the main problem with the issue of medication optimization in PD actually is simplicity. More precisely, the illusion of simplicity. Medication adherence and effectiveness in PD are mostly treated as simple, binary issues: “Did you take your medication? Yes or no?” But in reality, it’s much more complex. Timing, food intake, stress levels, sleep quality, and countless other factors can influence how well our meds works.

    Yet, our healthcare system is not set up to systematically track and adjust for these variables. Instead, PwP are mostly left to figure it out themselves, with trial and error as our primary tool.This means that many PwP, myself included, spend years fine-tuning our medication regimens without structured support. Some of us get lucky and find a pattern that works well; others struggle for years with inconsistent results.

    In conclusion

    For this area to develop, we need a better understanding of how PwP actually take their medication in daily life and not just how they are prescribed to take it. We need more research that focuses on the real-world challenges of medication adherence, from remembering doses to managing side effects and adjusting for the unpredictability of daily life with PD. We need a more nuanced discussion of what is working, what isn’t, and why. Until then, PwP will continue doing what we have always done: adapting, experimenting, and trying to make the best of an imperfect system.

    It’s ironic that while Parkinson’s medication is one of the most researched aspects of the disease, the actual experience of taking it—the daily struggles, the trial and error, the constant balancing act—is still largely unstudied. The truth is, many PwP are experts in managing their own meds out of necessity, yet our knowledge remains anecdotal and undervalued in clinical settings. If we truly want to improve Parkinson’s care, we need to start acknowledging the experiential expertise of us who live with it every single day.

    And no, there is nothing simple about managing PD meds – it’s complex all the way!

  • Nej, vi är INTE alla patienter!

    Nej, vi är INTE alla patienter!

    Idag medverkade jag i en panel på en digital konferens om den svenska life sciencestrategin och hur arbetet kan/bör/ska fortgå framåt för att “kraftsamla och göra verkstad” med “patientnytta i fokus”. (OBS: min användning av citattecken är inte ironiskt menad, det är faktiska citat från konferensen.) Jag har medverkat i rådgivande grupper på departementsnivå sedan 2014 och har sett området life science bli tydligare definierat under denna tid, vilket är glädjande för detta är ett väldigt viktigt område. Patientperspektivet har under denna tid fått en alltmer tydlig plats i diskussionerna och i strategidokumenten, se till exempel den senaste life sciencestrategin HÄR.

    Det var en bra konferens med intressanta diskussioner och perspektiv. Men… under den avslutande panelen så var det en person som gjorde en kommentar. Jag har hört samma sak många gånger förut och jag trodde att vi hade kommit längre. Han sa:

    …vi är ju alla patienter…”

    Och på ett sätt har han rätt: vi får alla någon gång hjälp från vården och är därmed alla någon gång i våra liv patienter. Det är dock stor skillnad på att behöva läkemedel någon gång ibland, kanske en kur antibiotika vart tredje år eller så, och att vara helt beroende av läkemedel för att kroppen ska fungera. Om jag inte hade tillgång till mina mediciner, fem olika receptbelagda läkemedel som jag tar i olika kombinationer vid sex olika tillfällen varje dag, så skulle jag inte kunna arbeta. Jag skulle inte heller kunna ta hand om mig själv, göra hushållssysslor, klä på mig själv eller sköta min egen hygien. Innan levodopapreparaten blev tillgängliga under 1960-talet så var Parkinson en sjukdom som man dog av inom max 10-15 år.

    Alltså, kära life science-sektorn: nej, vi är inte alla patienter. Om ni verkligen vill förbättra kliniska prövningar, nyttiggörandet av hälsodata, ansvarsfull policyutveckling, teknik för ökad hälsa och de andra ambitionerna i life sciencestrategin, då får ni inte bäst hjälp av någon medelålders mellanchef som behöver bli frisk från halsflussen i tid till Vasaloppets Öppet spår. Nej, den bästa hjälpen får ni från någon som vet hur hjälplös man är när läkemedlet man behöver är restnoterat med okänd leveranstid, någon som vet hur icke-sömlöst vårt svenska vårdsystem är, någon som vet hur väldigt många stolar det finns som man kan falla mellan.

    Kort sagt, ni behöver hjälp av en patient!

  • Understanding Parkinson’s: The curse of knowledge

    Understanding Parkinson’s: The curse of knowledge

    I just realised that I have probably been suffering from the “curse of knowledge” when trying to explain Parkinson’s (PD) to people. With this I mean that things that are obvious to me are probably not as obvious to others when it comes to understanding Parkinson’s. Let me demonstrate with a few examples:

    Biomarkers in Parkinson’s

    I often say that there are no biomarkers in PD but if you read the scientific literature there are many examples. What’s up with that? The problem is that none of them are fully deterministic. With that I mean that none of them are relevant for all people with PD. Many different attempts at biomarkers are used in projects on PD and one example REM-sleep behaviour disorder or RBD. This condition entails people not lying still while sleeping but rather can thrash about in bed and if someone is sleeping next to them the spouse or partner might even get hurt. This is considered one of the early markers of PD in the scientific community but I would say that its usefulness to patients is limited. This is because not all people with RBD will go on to be diagnosed with PD and conversely not all people with PD will ever experience RBD. There are also other suggested prodromal signs like depression, loss of sense of smell etc. They are all equally non-deterministic as RBD and without clear patterns in co-occurences between different individuals who go on to be diagnosed with PD (or not).

    Diagnosis of PD

    Also here there are important challenges. The condition is generally diagnosed based on observations of a few key symptoms:

    • Tremor. Not all PwP have this.
    • Slowness of movement (bradykinesia). I would say that all PwP have this symptom but there are MANY other conditions that also give this symptom
    • Stiffness (rigidity). Most PwP have this symptom in varying degrees but it can be difficult to distinguish from other conditions that result in stiffness.

    Comparison with type 1 diabetes

    Let me make a comparison with a different complex chronic condition: type 1 diabetes (T1d). There is a very distinctive and specific biomarker in blood glucose levels. All people with T1d need insulin to survive and they all use frequent blood sugar readings to regulate their treatment. 

    In short: both Parkinson’s and T1d are equal to being dealt a really shitty hand in the “poker game of life”. But while with T1d you get the two of clubs, seven of hearts, king of spades, ten of diamonds, and five of spades, with Parkinson’s your hand consists of an old bus ticket, a wrinkled up candy wrapper, your old business card from two re-organisations ago, a receipt from your latest visit to the pharmacy, and small piece of pocket lint…

  • Patient self-experimentation makes the headlines!

    Patient self-experimentation makes the headlines!

    What is self-experimentation?

    Sanctorio sitting in the balance that he made to calculate his net weight change over time after the intake and excretion of foodstuffs and fluids.

    Self-experimentation is a type of single-subject research where the researcher and the research subject are one and the same. This is a practice with ancient traditions and prominent examples exist throughout history. Some of the more well-known include: The Italian physician Sanctorius of Padua (1561-1636) who is considered the father of experimental physiology, largely as a result of him for thirty years using a ”weighing chair” to weigh himself, everything he ate and drank, as well as the urine and faeces he excreted. This led to him formulating new theories about our metabolism, some of which are still valid today. Another example is the German physician and researcher Werner Forssmann (1904-1979) who in 1929 performed the world’s first heart catheterisation, on himself. A more recent example is the Australian physician Barry Marshall who in 1984 infected himself with Helicobacter pylori, thereby proving that stomach ulcers are the result of a bacterial infection. Both Forssmann and Marshall were rewarded with Nobel prizes for their discoveries. 

    What happened the other day?

    And just the other day, self-experimentation made the headlines of Nature, one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world. The article is titled “This scientist treated her own cancer with viruses she grew in the lab” and is definitely worth reading. It is about the Croatian virologist Beata Halassy who, after getting her second recurrence of breast cancer, combined her virology training with self-experimentation and administered oncolytic virotherapy to herself. Her oncologists agreed to monitor her and they are also coauthors to the scientific article in the journal Vaccines describing the study. The study was rejected by more than a dozen journals before being published by Vaccines and Halassy says that the reason for the rejections was ethical concerns. There are certainly plenty of interesting ethical challenges here and I would like to focus on a specific section in the Nature article, where law and medicine researcher Jacob Sherkow comments:

    The problem is not that Halassy used self-experimentation as such, but that publishing her results could encourage others to reject conventional treatment and try something similar, says Sherkow. People with cancer can be particularly susceptible to trying unproven treatments. Yet, he notes, it’s also important to ensure that the knowledge that comes from self-experimentation isn’t lost. The paper emphasizes that self-medicating with cancer-fighting viruses “should not be the first approach” in the case of a cancer diagnosis.

    “I think it ultimately does fall within the line of being ethical, but it isn’t a slam-dunk case,” says Sherkow, adding that he would have liked to see a commentary fleshing out the ethics perspective, published alongside the case report.

    These are relevant and important points and I would like to share my thoughts on this. 

    What are my experiences of ethical issues relating to self-experimentation?

    I have some personal experience from self-experimentation myself, although of a much less invasive nature. In one study I used an observational design to better understand how the effects from my medications vary over the day. I take a lot of pills to reduce my Parkinson’s symptoms. The pills have to be taken several times every day and the medication effect waxes and wanes as the substances in the pills are being taken up and metabolised in my body. This study is published in a scientific journal: “Precision Medicine in Parkinson’s Disease – Exploring Patient-Initiated Self-Tracking”.

    I have also used self-experimentation in an interventional study to investigate the effects of nicotine administered via an e-cigarette on levodopa-induced dyskinesia (a troublesome side effect of Parkinson’s medication). This study is also published in a scientific journal: “Patient-driven N-of-1 in Parkinson’s disease: Lessons learned from a placebo-controlled study of the effect of nicotine on dyskinesia”

    In 2018, my application to defend my PhD thesis at Karolinska Institutet was rejected, see a small excerpt from the decision of the Dissertation Committee here:

    ”[…] The primary focus of this process has been the issue of ethical approval and the conclusion is that The Ethical Review Act does not make exceptions for research on persons who themselves are scientifically involved in the study. […]”

    The full post is available here

    Subsequently, I went on to successfully defend my PhD thesis at Radboud University in the Netherlands, which you can read about here:

    As part of the process of transferring my PhD work from Karolinska Institutet to Radboud University, together with my main supervisor, professor Bas Bloem, my co-supervisors assistant professor Maria Hägglund and Martijn de Groot, and professor of biomedical ethics Annelien Bredenoord, I wrote a commentary on ethical issues in relation to my thesis work: “Ethical Aspects of Personal Science for Persons with Parkinson’s Disease: What Happens When Self-Tracking Goes from Selfcare to Publication?”.  

    What are my thoughts on what Halassy did?

    From a patient perspective, I completely understand why Halassy did what she did. She found herself faced with a personal health challenge with huge implications. For her it was literally a matter of life or death. At the same time, she had access to knowledge and resources that she could use to potentially address her problem, and hopefully survive. Of course she felt she had to do what she could with what she had at her disposal! In this case, my guess would be that there are few people in the world more suited than Halassy to make a genuinely informed decision about this specific treatment and the risks involved. And, in fairness, that was also what Sherkow said in the Nature article: the problem was not that Halassy had used self-experimentation. 

    Sherkow went on to say that the actual problem was that she had published her results, because “her results could encourage others to reject conventional treatment and try something similar”. Let me unpack that statement a bit: Is it reasonable to think that others with breast cancer would reject conventional treatment based on the publication of this study? I genuinely don’t think that is a likely scenario, for several reasons. First and foremost, very few patients have the knowledge needed and access to a virology lab. So why and how could the publication result in others rejecting conventional treatment? And if they did reject conventional treatment, for whatever reason, surely that is their prerogative? 

    To me, Sherkow’s statement seems to be an example of epistemic injustice in action, and in this case testimonial injustice, which according to the Wikipedia entry means “unfairness related to trusting someone’s word. An injustice of this kind can occur when someone is ignored, or not believed, because of their sex, sexuality, gender presentation, race, disability, or, broadly, because of their identity.” Before we ”become patients”, we have been able to live an independent life with responsibilities, obligations, and human rights. Why would we suddenly become unable to make our own decisions, just because we have been diagnosed with a life-altering medical condition, for example cancer?

    In contrast, I would like to ask: Would it have been ethical by Halassy and her coauthors NOT to have published what they learned from this?

  • This is why patient involvement is important for improving healthcare or “It seems inconvenient, but if you really want to, you can try”

    This is why patient involvement is important for improving healthcare or “It seems inconvenient, but if you really want to, you can try”

    (This blog post is also available in Swedish =>> here)

    Most people living with Parkinson’s disease take a lot of pills, multiple times a day. After having Parkinson’s for a while, it’s not uncommon to be prescribed 3-4 different types of medications to be taken in various combinations 4-6 times each day. One of my medications is an extended-release type, which means that the pill slowly dissolves in the body, and therefore, at least in theory, it’s sufficient to take it only once a day. When I started taking that medication, I did exactly that, took it once every day, in the morning. After the usual “adjustment problems” such as a bit of nausea and similar issues for a few weeks, I felt confident that the addition of this medication did indeed make it a bit easier for me to move around.

    After some time however, I noticed that the positive effect was noticeable in the morning but the pill didn’t give me as much of an effect later in the afternoon. During my next neurologist visit, I mentioned this to him. I knew that the same medication was available also in other dosage strengths so I asked him if maybe he could prescribe it to me in a lower strength so that I could spread out my intakes of the extended-release formulation over the day. In this way, I could take lower doses at several different times instead of taking only one higher dose tablet in the morning. He considered this for a few seconds and said: “According to the information from the pharmaceutical company, it really should be enough to take this medication only once a day, and it does seems inconvenient to take it at multiple times. But if you really want to, you can try.” I left the clinic with a new prescription and was curious to see how this new dosing would work out.

    Classification of patient knowledge by source of learning. (From: Dumez, V., & L’Espérance, A. (2024). Beyond experiential knowledge: A classification of patient knowledge. Social Theory & Health.)

    It should come as no surprise that I strongly believe that the improvement of healthcare should be done together with patients, and I recently came across a scientific article that made me see patient involvement in a completely new light: “Beyond experiential knowledge: a classification of patient knowledge” written by Vincent Dumez and Audrey L’Espérance. They identify six types of patient knowledge from three main sources of patient learning, see the Figure. You can read a separate post about that article here, and most important is that Dumez and L’Espérance made me aware of the concept of patients’ experiential knowledge. I also went through that article’s reference list (a good way to find other relevant scientific articles in a particular field) and found a very interesting article published back in 1976: “Experiential Knowledge: A New Concept for the Analysis of Self-Help Groups” written by Thomasina Borkman. There, experiential knowledge is described as “first-hand knowledge,” meaning knowledge obtained from personal experience with a phenomenon, as opposed to knowledge that comes from reasoning, observation, or reflection based on information provided by someone else. I have written a separate post also for this article (link here).

    So what? Why is this important?

    What does this mean then? In what way do these two scientific articles relate to patient involvement? This is my take: Through their education and professional work, healthcare professionals have acquired theoretical knowledge. They have also gained experiential knowledge through their professional practice. Of course, both of these aspects are very important when you want to improve and further develop healthcare. And if you live 24/7 with illness, disabilities, and the need for help and support from healthcare and society, AKA patients, you gain experiential knowledge. That kind of knowledge cannot be gained theoretically. You cannot get experiential knowledge from reading a textbook or a scientific article, it can only be acquired through living it.

    This means that without also having direct access to patients’ experiential knowledge, healthcare professionals do not have the full picture and therefore cannot solve the problem at hand: to optimize individual health, in the best way.

    Finally

    You might wonder what happened when I started taking the extended-release medication several times a day instead of just once every day. Well, as usual when making medication changes, there were some initial adjustment issues when I went from a higher dose once a day to several lower doses. After that, it became very clear to me that this way of using the medication gave me a noticeably more consistent effect. I shared this with my neurologist, and later I heard from other people with Parkinson’s who also go to him that he started prescribing this extended-release tablet in the same way to other patients as well.

    In conclusion: involving patients in improving and further developing healthcare is important because it ensures that healthcare is based on the actual priorities that patients have, rather than the priorities that healthcare professionals think that patients have.

  • Classification of patient knowledge

    Classification of patient knowledge

    I vividly remember the first time I realized that my neurologist and I are in possession of vastly different although complementary types of knowledge. At the time, I had been a patient of his for a couple of years and in between appointments, I would write my questions about Parkinson’s disease (PD), my treatment, and other things that I thought were related to my condition on a list that I brought to my next visit. He would patiently answer my questions as best he could and on the subway going home from the clinic, I would start my next list.

    (more…)
  • Patients’ experiential knowledge and expertise

    Patients’ experiential knowledge and expertise

    I recently came across a very interesting scientific article, published almost 50 years ago, with concepts that are definitely still relevant and important today:

    Borkman, T. (1976). Experiential Knowledge:
    A New Concept for the Analysis of Self-Help Groups. 
    Social Service Review50(3), 445–456. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/643401

    (more…)
  • “Do you want to drink cappuccinos or do you want to get well?”

    “Do you want to drink cappuccinos or do you want to get well?”

    Even though the notion of shared decision-making in healthcare was first mentioned in scientific literature already during the 1970s, the main development in the field has taken place since 1997, when the well-cited article “Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango)” by Charles et al. was published. In it, the authors state that “To date, the concept has been rather poorly and loosely defined”. They go on to suggest the following four “key characteristics of shared decision-making (1) that at least two participants–physician and patient be involved; (2) that both parties share information; (3) that both parties take steps to build a consensus about the preferred treatment; and (4) that an agreement is reached on the treatment to implement.”

    (more…)