43
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references69

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research

          Background The Framework Method is becoming an increasingly popular approach to the management and analysis of qualitative data in health research. However, there is confusion about its potential application and limitations. Discussion The article discusses when it is appropriate to adopt the Framework Method and explains the procedure for using it in multi-disciplinary health research teams, or those that involve clinicians, patients and lay people. The stages of the method are illustrated using examples from a published study. Summary Used effectively, with the leadership of an experienced qualitative researcher, the Framework Method is a systematic and flexible approach to analysing qualitative data and is appropriate for use in research teams even where not all members have previous experience of conducting qualitative research.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies.

            The expansion of evidence-based practice across sectors has lead to an increasing variety of review types. However, the diversity of terminology used means that the full potential of these review types may be lost amongst a confusion of indistinct and misapplied terms. The objective of this study is to provide descriptive insight into the most common types of reviews, with illustrative examples from health and health information domains. Following scoping searches, an examination was made of the vocabulary associated with the literature of review and synthesis (literary warrant). A simple analytical framework -- Search, AppraisaL, Synthesis and Analysis (SALSA) -- was used to examine the main review types. Fourteen review types and associated methodologies were analysed against the SALSA framework, illustrating the inputs and processes of each review type. A description of the key characteristics is given, together with perceived strengths and weaknesses. A limited number of review types are currently utilized within the health information domain. Few review types possess prescribed and explicit methodologies and many fall short of being mutually exclusive. Notwithstanding such limitations, this typology provides a valuable reference point for those commissioning, conducting, supporting or interpreting reviews, both within health information and the wider health care domain.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Rigor in qualitative research: the assessment of trustworthiness.

              L Krefting (1991)
              Despite a growing interest in qualitative research in occupational therapy, little attention has been placed on establishing its rigor. This article presents one model that can be used for the assessment of trustworthiness or merit of qualitative inquiry. Guba's (1981) model describes four general criteria for evaluation of research and then defines each from both a quantitative and a qualitative perspective. Several strategies for the achievement of rigor in qualitative research useful for both researchers and consumers of research are described.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                h.jennings@yorksj.ac.uk
                m.slade@nottingham.ac.uk
                peter.bates@ndti.org.uk
                emmamunday4@gmail.com
                rebecca.toney@nottingham.ac.uk
                Journal
                BMC Psychiatry
                BMC Psychiatry
                BMC Psychiatry
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-244X
                28 June 2018
                28 June 2018
                2018
                : 18
                : 213
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0598 9700, GRID grid.23695.3b, Department of Occupational Therapy, School of Health Sciences, , York St. John University, ; York, UK
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8868, GRID grid.4563.4, School of Health Sciences, , Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, ; Triumph Road, Nottingham, NG7 2TU UK
                [3 ]Peter Bates Associates Ltd, Nottingham, UK
                [4 ]RECOLLECT Lived Experience Advisory Panel, Nottingham, UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7020-3434
                Article
                1794
                10.1186/s12888-018-1794-8
                6022311
                29954373
                ea291caa-9a1c-42ae-ae5e-3442d14260a3
                © The Author(s). 2018

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 22 December 2017
                : 17 June 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100009130, Programme Development Grants;
                Award ID: RP-DG-0615-10008
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                patient and public involvement (ppi),mental health research,qualitative,collaborative data analysis,co-production

                Comments

                Comment on this article