'What difference does it make?' Finding evidence of the impact of mental health service user researchers on research into the experiences of detained psychiatric patients
'What difference does it make?' Finding evidence of the impact of mental health service user researchers on research into the experiences of detained psychiatric patients
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00596.x
复制
发表时间：
2010-06-01
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Chambers, Mary
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gillard, Steven;Borschmann, Rohan;Chambers, Mary
背景公众参与卫生服务研究的兴趣越来越集中在评估参与对研究过程和健康知识生产的影响上。服务用户参与心理健康研究是公认的，目的探讨服务使用者研究者（SURs）对研究过程的影响提供经验证据的可能性。设计本研究使用了一系列二次分析的访谈记录，这些访谈记录来自一项定性研究，该研究对根据《精神卫生法》被拘留的精神病患者的经历（1983年），以比较的方式，SURs和传统的大学研究人员（URs）进行和分析定性interventions.ResultsAnalyses的方式，服务用户和传统的URs进行定性访谈显示了一些差异。特别报告员更有可能根据受访者的经历和感受对访谈记录进行编码（分析），而传统的报告员则主要根据与拘留有关的过程和程序对同样的记录进行编码。基于少量的研究人员的二次分析的局限性进行了识别和discussed.ConclusionsThe研究表明，有可能开发一种方法论上的强大的方法来评估经验的影响，SURs的研究过程和结果，并表明了潜在的好处，协作研究告知循证实践在精神卫生服务。
BackgroundInterest in the involvement of members of the public in health services research is increasingly focussed on evaluation of the impact of involvement on the research process and the production of knowledge about health. Service user involvement in mental health research is well-established, yet empirical studies into the impact of involvement are lacking.ObjectiveTo investigate the potential to provide empirical evidence of the impact of service user researchers (SURs) on the research process.DesignThe study uses a range of secondary analyses of interview transcripts from a qualitative study of the experiences of psychiatric patients detained under the Mental Health Act (1983) to compare the way in which SURs and conventional university researchers (URs) conduct and analyse qualitative interviews.ResultsAnalyses indicated some differences in the ways in which service user- and conventional URs conducted qualitative interviews. SURs were much more likely to code (analyse) interview transcripts in terms of interviewees' experiences and feelings, while conventional URs coded the same transcripts largely in terms of processes and procedures related to detention. The limitations of a secondary analysis based on small numbers of researchers are identified and discussed.ConclusionsThe study demonstrates the potential to develop a methodologically robust approach to evaluate empirically the impact of SURs on research process and findings, and is indicative of the potential benefits of collaborative research for informing evidence-based practice in mental health services.