Bridging the Gap: A Qualitative Study Exploring the Impact of the Involvement of Researchers With Lived Experience on a Multisite Randomised Control Trial in the National Probation Service in England and Wales

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health Expectations Pub Date : 2025-02-04 DOI:10.1111/hex.70162
Elizabeth Simes, Stephen Butler, Elizabeth Allison, Barbara Barrett, Anthony Bateman, Angus Cameron, Mike Crawford, Alison Frater, Zoe Hoare, Mary McMurran, Paul Moran, Stephen Pilling, James Wason, Jessica Yakeley, Peter Fonagy
{"title":"Bridging the Gap: A Qualitative Study Exploring the Impact of the Involvement of Researchers With Lived Experience on a Multisite Randomised Control Trial in the National Probation Service in England and Wales","authors":"Elizabeth Simes,&nbsp;Stephen Butler,&nbsp;Elizabeth Allison,&nbsp;Barbara Barrett,&nbsp;Anthony Bateman,&nbsp;Angus Cameron,&nbsp;Mike Crawford,&nbsp;Alison Frater,&nbsp;Zoe Hoare,&nbsp;Mary McMurran,&nbsp;Paul Moran,&nbsp;Stephen Pilling,&nbsp;James Wason,&nbsp;Jessica Yakeley,&nbsp;Peter Fonagy","doi":"10.1111/hex.70162","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Methodological and ethical arguments support the involvement of individuals with lived experience in research to reduce engagement barriers and ensure those directly affected by studies contribute to knowledge generation. However, there is limited evidence on the impact of including researchers with lived experience of serving a prison or community sentence in clinical trials. This qualitative study aimed to explore the value of involving researchers with lived experience of the criminal justice system as data collectors in the Mentalization for Offending Adult Males (MOAM), a multisite RCT conducted in the National Probation Service in England and Wales.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 trial participants and 17 key stakeholders, either in person or via telephone. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Findings</h3>\n \n <p>Five themes emerged for trial participants and 11 for key stakeholders. For some, lived experience researchers helped overcome engagement barriers by fostering common ground with participants who were serving a prison or community sentence during recruitment. Participants reported that the involvement of lived experience researchers enhanced the study by facilitating knowledge transfer in certain instances. However, their inclusion did not eliminate all barriers and, for some participants, introduced new challenges to engagement.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Forensic lived experience researchers bridged the gap by fostering trust between data collectors and participants. Future studies should ensure that lived experience researchers receive adequate clinical supervision to support their role. The adopted methodology challenged assumptions about knowledge generation and stereotypes associated with being an ex-offender, benefiting both lived experience and traditional researchers.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patient or Public Contribution</h3>\n \n <p>The study was developed in collaboration with User Voice (charity number: 1136047), who contributed to the study's design and conduct. The service user organisation co-designed the interview schedule and directed the protocol for participant payments, emphasising a consistent approach to avoid tokenism and ensure equal recognition of all contributions. The dissemination plan was developed in partnership with individuals with lived experience of the criminal justice system.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hex.70162","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Expectations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70162","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Methodological and ethical arguments support the involvement of individuals with lived experience in research to reduce engagement barriers and ensure those directly affected by studies contribute to knowledge generation. However, there is limited evidence on the impact of including researchers with lived experience of serving a prison or community sentence in clinical trials. This qualitative study aimed to explore the value of involving researchers with lived experience of the criminal justice system as data collectors in the Mentalization for Offending Adult Males (MOAM), a multisite RCT conducted in the National Probation Service in England and Wales.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 trial participants and 17 key stakeholders, either in person or via telephone. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically.

Findings

Five themes emerged for trial participants and 11 for key stakeholders. For some, lived experience researchers helped overcome engagement barriers by fostering common ground with participants who were serving a prison or community sentence during recruitment. Participants reported that the involvement of lived experience researchers enhanced the study by facilitating knowledge transfer in certain instances. However, their inclusion did not eliminate all barriers and, for some participants, introduced new challenges to engagement.

Conclusion

Forensic lived experience researchers bridged the gap by fostering trust between data collectors and participants. Future studies should ensure that lived experience researchers receive adequate clinical supervision to support their role. The adopted methodology challenged assumptions about knowledge generation and stereotypes associated with being an ex-offender, benefiting both lived experience and traditional researchers.

Patient or Public Contribution

The study was developed in collaboration with User Voice (charity number: 1136047), who contributed to the study's design and conduct. The service user organisation co-designed the interview schedule and directed the protocol for participant payments, emphasising a consistent approach to avoid tokenism and ensure equal recognition of all contributions. The dissemination plan was developed in partnership with individuals with lived experience of the criminal justice system.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Health Expectations
Health Expectations 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
9.40%
发文量
251
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Expectations promotes critical thinking and informed debate about all aspects of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care, health policy and health services research including: • Person-centred care and quality improvement • Patients'' participation in decisions about disease prevention and management • Public perceptions of health services • Citizen involvement in health care policy making and priority-setting • Methods for monitoring and evaluating participation • Empowerment and consumerism • Patients'' role in safety and quality • Patient and public role in health services research • Co-production (researchers working with patients and the public) of research, health care and policy Health Expectations is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, review articles and critical commentaries. It includes papers which clarify concepts, develop theories, and critically analyse and evaluate specific policies and practices. The Journal provides an inter-disciplinary and international forum in which researchers (including PPIE researchers) from a range of backgrounds and expertise can present their work to other researchers, policy-makers, health care professionals, managers, patients and consumer advocates.
期刊最新文献
Co-Design of the Structured Personalised Assessment for Reviews After Cancer (SPARC) Intervention Task Shifting, eHealth and Shared Decision-Making—Preference Heterogeneity in the Adult Population for Developments in Outpatient Primary Healthcare Developing a Quality Improvement Framework to Enhance the Health System User Experience for Individuals Living With Type 1 Diabetes: The Reshape T1D Study Feasibility and Applicability of Implementing the Framework for Comprehensive Understanding of Structural Stigma in Mental Healthcare Systems: A Case Example of Nepal Erratum to “What I Wish I Had Known: Examining Parent Accounts of Managing the Health of Their Child With Intellectual Disability”
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1