Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Community Participation”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 343 records · Page 19Linked to original sources
PubMed2000

Increasing community participation after brain injury: strategies for identifying and reducing the risks.

This article describes the complex processes involved in evaluating safety, judgment, and risk after brain injury. Starting with a review of common risk factors after onset, the article then moves to a discussion of the dilemmas faced by family members and clinicians alike when determining the individual's level of risk. Numerous suggestions are offered to identify support system concerns and to establish specific barriers to independence. The need to adopt a systematized approach to empirically verifying concerns about safety is emphasized, in addition to utilizing therapeutic interventions that are sensitive to the individual's learning capacity, psychological status, and environmental influences. The article concludes with examples of how to structure support for individuals who present with ongoing risk factors but still need to experience greater levels of personal freedom.

Activities of Daily Living↗
PubMed1985

The public's oral health and the dental research community--participant or observer?

Dental researchers may sometimes find themselves called upon to enter the public arena to promote or defend measures to improve the public's oral health. It is important, therefore, to keep up-to-date information at hand to supply to news media, public officials, and others, and to be aware of the opportunities and the pitfalls involved in communicating with the public.

Communication↗
PubMed2003

Beyond public perceptions of gene technology: community participation in public policy in Australia.

Public policy assumptions, which view "the public" as passive consumers, are deeply flawed. "The public" are, in fact, active citizens, who constitute the innovation end of the seamless web of relationships, running from research and development laboratory to shop, hospital or farm, or local neighborhood. "The public" do not receive the impact of technology; they are the impact, in that they determine with gene technology (GT) developers and sellers what happens to the technology in our society. In doing so, they, or more rightly we, exercise particular, contextual knowledges and actions. We suggest that it is the ignorance of this aspect of innovation in policy processes that produces the distrust and resentment that we found in our interviews with "publics" interested in gene technology. This is consistent with Beck's description of the deep structural states of risk and fear in modern advanced societies with respect to new technologies, such as gene technology. Only policy processes that recognize the particular, local and contextual knowledges of "the public", which co-construct innovation, can achieve deep, social structural consideration of gene technology. And only such a deep consideration can avoid the polarized attitudes and deep suspicions that we have seen arise in places such as Britain. Such consideration needs the type of processes that involve active consultation and inclusion of "the public" in government and commercial innovation, the so-called deliberative and inclusionary processes (DIPs), such as consensus conferences and citizen juries. We suggest some measures that could be tried in Australia, which would take us further down the path of participation toward technological citizenship.

Australia↗