Defining patient’s experiential knowledge: Who, what and how patients know. A narrative critical review

Abstract

Experiential knowledge is today increasingly valued in health‐care practices, public health policies and health research and education programs. However, despite popular and institutional success, the concept remains loosely defined with the result of weakening its heuristic scope and paving the way for its commodification. In this article, we seek to provide a finer characterisation of patients’ experiential knowledge’s features and specificities through a critical narrative review of humanities and social science (HSS) literature published in English and French (1976–2021). Inspired by Jovchelovitch’s analysis of social knowledge, we seek to highlight the diversity and plurality of forms and articulations of knowledge that characterise experiential knowledge, as well as the gradual, dynamic and entangled process that leads from experience to knowledge and expertise. Our analysis points to the need for future research to adopt a resolutely pragmatic and situated orientation in the study of experiential knowledge and the new figures of the contemporary patient that they help to create.

Experiential knowledge: From philosophical debate to health care practice?

“…In a recent review, Halloy, Simon and Hejoaka 4 summarized the problem as follows:

[D]espite popular and institutional success, the concept [of experiential knowledge] remains loosely defined with the result of weakening its heuristic scope and paving the way for its commodification. The term ‘experiential knowledge’, as it is currently used, is a polysemous, catch‐all concept that applies to myriad definitions.

…”

“…It consists of using conceptual analysis to explicate any (implicit) intuitions and subsequently scrutinize these by using tools from various philosophical fields. Many existing accounts already acknowledge the need for a conceptual approach 4 . However, existing analyses lack philosophical depth.…”

“…This essentially consists in asking a lot of stakeholders (e.g., experience-based experts, professionals, clinicians, researchers) about what they think experiential knowledge consists of. (for recent examples, see 2,4,13 ). However, this route is fallible in that it assumes that people 'know' what experiential knowledge consists of, and that if we simply ask enough individuals then an uncontested concept would eventually emerge.…”

“…Many existing accounts already acknowledge the need for a conceptual approach. 4 However, existing analyses lack philosophical depth. An explanation for this is that they are written by researchers from nonphilosophical disciplines (such as anthropology or social science) or are written by experience-based experts.…”

“…In recent years it has become increasingly common, in various countries, to employ or consult experience-based experts to contribute to the organization and implementation of health care. [1][2][3][4] One of the key motivations behind this trend is the intuition that former patients, or more generally those with lived experience of illness and recovery, may contribute unique knowledge that can improve health care. Although many share this intuition, what such 'experiential knowledge' consists of exactly remains a topic for debate.…”