Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Psychiatry
Published in: BMC Psychiatry 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Best practice framework for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in collaborative data analysis of qualitative mental health research: methodology development and refinement

Authors: Helen Jennings, Mike Slade, Peter Bates, Emma Munday, Rebecca Toney

Published in: BMC Psychiatry | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in mental health research is increasing, especially in early (pre-funding) stages. PPI is less consistent in later stages, including in analysing qualitative data. The aims of this study were to develop a methodology for involving PPI co-researchers in collaboratively analysing qualitative mental health research data with academic researchers, to pilot and refine this methodology, and to create a best practice framework for collaborative data analysis (CDA) of qualitative mental health research.

Methods

In the context of the RECOLLECT Study of Recovery Colleges, a critical literature review of collaborative data analysis studies was conducted, to identify approaches and recommendations for successful CDA. A CDA methodology was developed and then piloted in RECOLLECT, followed by refinement and development of a best practice framework.

Results

From 10 included publications, four CDA approaches were identified: (1) consultation, (2) development, (3) application and (4) development and application of coding framework. Four characteristics of successful CDA were found: CDA process is co-produced; CDA process is realistic regarding time and resources; demands of the CDA process are manageable for PPI co-researchers; and group expectations and dynamics are effectively managed. A four-meeting CDA process was piloted to co-produce a coding framework based on qualitative data collected in RECOLLECT and to create a mental health service user-defined change model relevant to Recovery Colleges. Formal and informal feedback demonstrated active involvement. The CDA process involved an extra 80 person-days of time (40 from PPI co-researchers, 40 from academic researchers). The process was refined into a best practice framework comprising Preparation, CDA and Application phases.

Conclusions

This study has developed a typology of approaches to collaborative analysis of qualitative data in mental health research, identified from available evidence the characteristics of successful involvement, and developed, piloted and refined the first best practice framework for collaborative analysis of qualitative data. This framework has the potential to support meaningful PPI in data analysis in the context of qualitative mental health research studies, a previously neglected yet central part of the research cycle.
Literature
1.
Ashcroft J, Wykes T, Taylor J, Crowther A, Szmukler G. Impact on the individual: what do patients and carers gain, lose and expect from being involved in research? J Ment Health. 2016;25:28–35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
INVOLVE.: Briefing notes for researchers: involving the public in NHS, Public Health and social care research. Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2012.
3.
Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, Suleman R. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2014;17:637–50.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Staley K. Changing what researchers 'think and do’: is this how involvement impacts on research? Research for all. 2017;1:158–67.CrossRef
5.
Ennis L, Wykes T. Impact of patient involvement in mental health research: longitudinal study. Br J Psychiatry. 2013;203:381–6.CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
Stacey G, Felton A, Hui A, Stickely T, Houghton P, Diamond B, Morgan J, Shutt J, Willis M. Informed, involved and influential: three is of shared decision making. Ment Health Pract. 2015;19:31–5.CrossRef
8.
Slade M, Jordan H, Clarke E, Williams P, Kaliniecka H, Arnold K, Fiorillo A, Giacco D, Luciano M, Égerházi A, et al. The development and evaluation of a five-language multi-perspective standardised measure: clinical decision-making involvement and satisfaction (CDIS). BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:323.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
10.
Clarke E, Puschner B, Jordan H, Williams P, Konrad J, Kawohl W, Bär A, Rössler W, Del Vecchio V, Sampogna G, Nagy M, Süveges A, Krogsgaard Bording M, Slade M. Empowerment and satisfaction in a multinational study of routine clinical practice. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2015;131:369–78.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Tambuyzer E, Pieters G, Van A. Patient involvement in mental health care: one size does not fit all. Health Expect. 2014;17:138.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Farmer M, Macleod F. Involving disabled people in social reseach. London: Office for Disability Issues; 2011.
13.
National Institute for Health Research. National standards for public involvement. Southampton: NIHR; 2018.
14.
Shippee D, Garces J, Lopez G, Wang Z, Elraiyah T, Nabhan M, Brito J. Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework. Health Expect. 2015;18:1151–66.CrossRefPubMed
15.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Service user experience in adult mental health: improving the experience of care for people using adult NHS mental health services. CG136. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2011.
16.
Loos S, Clarke E, Jordan H, Puschner B, Fiorillo A, Luciano M, Ivánka T, Magyar E, Krogsgaard-Bording M, Østermark Sørensen H, Rössler W, Kawohl W, Mayer B, Slade M, CEDAR study group. Recovery and decision-making involvement in people with severe mental illness from six countries: a prospective observational study. BMC Psychiatry. 2017;17
17.
Small N, Brooks H, Grundy A, Pedley R, Gibbons C, Lovell K, Bee P. Understanding experiences of and preferences for service user and carer involvement in physical health care discussions within mental health care planning. BMC Psychiatry. 2017;17:138.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Samudre S, Shidhaye R, Ahuja S, Nanda S, Khan A, Evans-Lacko S, Hanlon C. Service user involvement for mental health system strengthening in India: a qualitative study. BMC Psychiatry. 2016;16:269.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Giacco D, Dirik A, Kaselionyte K, Priebe S. How to make carer involvement in mental health inpatient units happen: a focus group study with patients, carers and clinicians. BMC Psychiatry. 2017;17:101.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Pitt V, Lowe D, Hill S, Prictor M, Hetrick SE, Ryan R, Berends L. Consumer-providers of care for adult clients of statutory mental health services. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;3
21.
Rose D, MacDonald D, Wilson A, Crawford M, Barnes M, Omeni E. Service user led organisations in mental health today. J Ment Health. 2016;25:254–9.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Kortteisto T, Laitila M, Dosent A. Attitudes of mental health professionals towards service user involvement. Scand J Caring Sci. in press;
23.
Scholz B, Gordon S, Happell B. Consumers in mental health service leadership: a systematic review. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2017;26:20–31.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Denegri S. Going the extra mile: improving the nation’s health and wellbeing through public involvement in research. London: NIHR; 2015.
25.
Pandya-Wood R, Barron D, Elliott J. A framework for public involvement at the design stage of NHS health and social care research: time to develop ethically conscious standards. Research Involvement and Engagement. 2017;3:6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Boaz A, Biri D, McKevitt C. Rethinking the relationship between science and society: has there been a shift in attitudes to patient and public involvement and public engagement in science in the United Kingdom? Health Expect. 2016;19:592–601.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Green G. Power to the people: to what extent has public involvement in applied health research achieved this? Research Involvement and Engagement. 2016;2:28.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
European Commission: White paper on citizen science for Europe. ec.​europa.​eu/futurium/en/content/white-paper-citizen-science: date of access: 29/11/2017; 2015.
29.
30.
Sweeney A, Greenwood K, Williams S, Wykes T, Rose D. Hearing the voices of service user researchers in collaborative qualitative data analysis: the case for multiple coding. Health Expect. 2013;17:e89-e99.
31.
Cornish F, Gillespie A, Zittoun T. Collaborative analysis of qualitative data. In: Flick U, editor. Handbook of qualitative data analysis. London: Sage; 2013. p. 79–93.
32.
Tuffrey-Wijne I, Butler G. Co-researching with people with learning disabilities: an experience of involvement in qualitative data analysis. Health Expect. 2010;13:174–84.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Gillard S, Borschmann R, Turner K, Goodrich-Purnell N, Lovell K, Chambers M. ‘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. Health Expect. 2010;13:185–94.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Perkins R, Repper, J., Rinaldi, M., Brown, H.: ImROC 1. Recovery colleges. London: Centre for Mental Health; 2012.
35.
Slade M, McDaid D, Shepherd G, Williams S, Repper J. ImROC briefing paper 14. Recovery: the business case. ImROC: Nottingham; 2017.
36.
Kelly J, Gallagher S, McMahon J. Developing a recovery college: a preliminary exercise in establishing regional readiness and community needs. J Ment Health. 2017;26:150–5.CrossRefPubMed
37.
McCaig M, McNay L, Marland G, Bradstreet S, Campbell J. Establishing a recovery college in a Scottish university. Ment Health Soc Incl. 2014;18:92–7.CrossRef
38.
McGregor J, Repper J, Brown H. “The college is so different from anything I have done”. A study of the characteristics of Nottingham recovery college. J Mental Health Training, Education and Practice. 2014;9:3–15.CrossRef
39.
Christensen C. The innovator’s dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail. In: Boston: Harvard business school; 1997.
40.
Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf Libr J. 2009;26(2):91–108.CrossRef
41.
Aveyard H. Doing a literature review in health and social care: a practical guide. 3rd ed. London: Open University Press; 2014.
42.
Gale N, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:117.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
43.
Chard G. Analysis of occupational performance. In: Curtin M, Molineux M, Supyk-Melson J, editors. Occupational therapy and physical dysfunction: enabling occupation. Churchill Livingstone Elsevier: Edinburgh; 2010.
44.
Crepeau E, Schell, B. in Crepeau EB et al (eds) Analyzing occupations and activity. In: Willard and Spackman’s Occupational Therapy 11th ed. EDN Edited by Crepeau E, Cohn, E., Schell, B. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009.
45.
Brett J, Staniszewska, S., Mockford, C., Seers, K., Herron-Marx, S., Bayliss, H. (2010). University of Warwick: University of Warwick.. : The PIRICOM study: a systematic review of the conceptualisation, measurement, impact and outcomes of patients and public involvement in health and social care research. Coventry: University of Warwick; 2013.
46.
Krefting L. Rigor in qualitative research: the assessment of trustworthiness. Am J Occup Ther. 1991;45:214–22.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Morrow E, Ross F, Grocott P, Bennett J. A model and measure for quality service user involvement in health research. Int J Consum Stud. 2010;34:532–9.CrossRef
48.
Baxter S, Muir D, Brereton L, Allmark C, Barber R, Harris L, Hodges B, Khan S, Baird W. Evaluating public involvement in research design and grant development: using a qualitative document analysis method to analyse an award scheme for researchers. Research Involvement and Engagement. 2016;2:13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
49.
Cotterell P. Exploring the value of service user involvement in data analysis: ‘our interpretation is about what lies below the surface’. Educational Action Research. 2008;16:5–17.CrossRef
50.
Garfield S, Jheeta, S., Husson, F., Jacklin, A., Bischler, A., Norton, C., Franklin, B.: Lay involvement in the analysis of qualitative data in health services research: a descriptive study. 2016, 2(29).
51.
Mjøsund N, Eriksson M, Espnes G, Haaland-Øverby M, Jensen S, Norheim I, Kjus S, Portaasen I, Vinje H. Service user involvement enhanced the research quality in a study using interpretative phenomenological analysis – the power of multiple perspectives. J Adv Nurs. 2016;73:265–78.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Sixsmith J, Callender M, Hobbs G, Corr S, Huber J. Implementing the National Service Framework for long-term (neurological) conditions: service user and service provider experiences. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36:563–72.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Gillard S, Simons L, Turner K, Lucock M, Edwards C. Patient and public involvement in the coproduction of knowledge. Qual Health Res. 2012;22:1126–37.CrossRefPubMed
54.
National Involvement Partnership. Involvement for influence. In: London: NSUN; 2015.
55.
INVOLVE: Public involvement in research: values and principles Framework Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2015.
56.
MQ: UK mental Health Research funding. London: MQ; 2015.
57.
Banfield MA, Griffiths KM, Christensen HM, Barney LJ. SCOPE for research: mental health consumers' priorities for research compared with recent research in Australia. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2011;45(12):1078–85.CrossRefPubMed
58.
59.
Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership: Patient and public involvement in quality improvement. London: HQIP service user network; 2016.
60.
Slade M, Bird V, Chandler R, Fox J, Larsen J, Tew J, Leamy M. The contribution of advisory committees and public involvement to large studies: case study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10:323.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
61.
Slade M, Trivedi P, Chandler R, Leamy M. Developing involvement during a programme of recovery research. J Mental Health Training, Education and Practice. 2016;11:244–55.CrossRef
62.
Voronka J. The politics of ‘people with lived experience’ experiential authority and the risks of strategic essentialism. CEDAR study group. Psychiatry and Psychology. 2016;23:189–201.CrossRef
63.
McGivern G, Currie G, Ferlie E, Fitzgerald L, Waring J. Hybrid manager–professionals’ identity work: the maintenance and hybridization of medical professionalism in managerial contexts. Public Adm. 2015;93:412–32.CrossRef
64.
Gamble C, Dudley L, Allam A, Bell P, Buck D, Goodare H. An evidence base to optimise methods for involving patient and public contributors in clinical trials: a mixed-methods study. Health Services and Delivery Research. 2015;3(39)
65.
Smith J, Flowers P, Larkin M. Interpretative phenomenological analysis: theory, method and research. London: Sage; 2009.
66.
Woelders S, Abma T, Visser T, Schipper K. The power of difference in inclusive research. Disability & Society. 2015;30:528–42.CrossRef
67.
Mezirow J. Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1991.
68.
Honey PM, A.: The Manual of Learning Styles. Maidenhead: Peter Honey; 1986.
69.
Baart I, Abma T. Patient participation in fundamental psychiatric genomics research: a Dutch case study. Health Expect. 2011;14:240–9.CrossRefPubMed
70.
Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, Altman D, Moher D, Barber R, Denegri S, Entwistle A, Littlejohns P, Morris C, Suleman R, Thomas V, Tysall C. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ. 2017;358:j3453.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
71.
Bryant W, Parsonage, J., Tibbs, A., Andrews, C., Clark, J., Franco, L.: Meeting in the mist: key considerations in a collaborative research partnership with people with mental health issues. WORK: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment, and Rehabilitation 2012, 43:23–31.
72.
Lucero J, Wallerstein N, Duran B, Alegria M, Greene-Moton E, Israel B, Kastelic S, Magarati M, Oetzel J, Pearson C, Schulz A, Villegas M, White Hat E. Development of a mixed methods investigation of process and outcomes of community-based participatory research. J Mixed Methods Research. 2018;12:55–74.CrossRef
73.
Ollerton J, Horsfall D. Rights to research: utilising the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities as an inclusive participatory action research tool. Disability & Society. 2013;28:616–30.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Best practice framework for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in collaborative data analysis of qualitative mental health research: methodology development and refinement
Authors
Helen Jennings
Mike Slade
Peter Bates
Emma Munday
Rebecca Toney
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Psychiatry / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-244X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1794-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Psychiatry 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research article

There is more to mental illness than negative affect: comprehensive temperament profiles in depression and generalized anxiety

Research article

Attitudes of mental health clinicians toward perceived inaccuracy of a schizophrenia diagnosis in routine clinical practice

Research article

Effectiveness of a social inclusion program in people with non-affective psychosis

Research article

Salivary cortisol in post-traumatic stress disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Research article

Prevalence and stability of mental disorders among young adults: findings from a longitudinal study

Research article

Machine learning classification of first-episode schizophrenia spectrum disorders and controls using whole brain white matter fractional anisotropy