Lindenmeyer, Antje, Hearnshaw, Hilary, Sturt, Jackie, Ormerod, Ralph and Aitchison, Geoff. (2007) Assessment of the benefits of user involvement in health research from the Warwick Diabetes Care Research User Group : a qualitative case study. Health Expectations, Vol.10 (No.3). pp. 268-277. ISSN 1369-6513

Preview

PDF WRAP_Lindenmeyer_UG_case_study_for_re-submission_to_health_expectations_-_fin.pdf - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader Download (128Kb)

Abstract

Objective  To assess the benefits of involving health-care users in diabetes research. Design and participants  For this qualitative case study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with researchers who had worked extensively with the group. During regular meetings of the Research User Group, members discussed their views of the group's effectiveness as part of the meeting's agenda. Interviews and discussions were transcribed, coded using N-Vivo software and analysed using constant comparative methods. Results  Involvement of users in research was generally seen as contributing to effective and meaningful research. However, the group should not be considered to be representative of the patient population or participants of future trials. An important contributor to the group's success was its longstanding nature, enabling users to gain more insight into research and form constructive working relationships with researchers. The user-led nature of the group asserted itself, especially, in the language used during group meetings. A partial shift of power from researchers to users was generally acknowledged. Users' main contribution was their practical expertise in living with diabetes, but their involvement also helped researchers to remain connected to the `real world' in which research would be applied. While the group's work fulfilled established principles of consumer involvement in research, important contributions relying on personal interaction between users and researchers were hard to evaluate by process measures alone. Conclusions  We demonstrated the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of this longstanding, experienced, lay-led research advisory group. Its impact on research stems from the continuing interaction between researchers and users, and the general ethos of learning from each other in an on-going process. Both process measures and qualitative interviews with stakeholders are needed to evaluate the contributions of service users to health research.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	R Medicine > R Medicine (General) R Medicine > RC Internal medicine
Divisions:	Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	Patient participation, Diabetes -- Research
Journal or Publication Title:	Health Expectations
Publisher:	Blackwell
ISSN:	1369-6513
Date:	27 June 2007
Volume:	Vol.10
Number:	No.3
Page Range:	pp. 268-277
Identification Number:	10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00451.x
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Access rights to Published version:	Open Access
Description:	Version accepted by publisher (post-print, after peer review, before copy-editing).
References:	1. Boote J, Telford R, Cooper C. Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda. Health Policy, 2002; 2: 213-36. 2. Department of Health. Patient and public involvement in the new NHS. London: Department of Health, 1999. 3. INVOLVE. Promoting public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research. [Accessed on 23 March 2007]; Available from: www.invo.org.uk. 4. Hanley B, Truesdale A, King A, Elbourne D, Chalmers I. Involving consumers in designing, conducting, and interpreting randomised controlled trials: questionnaire survey. BMJ, 2001; 7285: 519-23. 5. Medical Research Council. Clinical trials for tomorrow: An MRC review of randomised controlled trials. London: MRC, 2003. 6. Nilsen E, Myrhaug H, Johansen M, Oliver S, Oxman A. Interventions for promoting consumer involvement in developing healthcare policy and research, clinical practice guidelines and information material (Protocol). The Cochrane Library, 2005; 1. 7. Saffin K, Hackett A, Wright A. Clinical trials for tomorrow: a consultation for the Medical Research Council. Oxford: Public Health Research Unit, 2003. 8. Genetic Interest Group. “Getting involved in research”: A guide for individuals, families and the groups that support them. London: Genetic Interest Group, 2000. 9. Caron-Flinterman JF, Broerse JE, Bunders JF. The experiential knowledge of patients: a new resource for biomedical research? Social Science and Medicine, 2005; 11: 2575-84. 10. Telford R, Boote JD, Cooper CL. What does it mean to involve consumers successfully in NHS research? A consensus study. Health Expectations, 2004; 3: 209-20. 11. Yin RK. Case study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2003. 12. Rutter D, Manley C, Weaver T, Crawford MJ, Fulop N. Patients or partners? Case studies of user involvement in the planning and delivery of adult mental health services in London. Social Science and Medicine, 2004; 10: 1973-84. 13. Scott D, Russell L. Researching voluntary and community action: the potential of qualitative case studies. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2005. 14. Glaser B, Strauss A. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. New York: de Gruyter, 1967. 15. O'Donnell M, Entwistle V. Consumer involvement in research projects: the activities of research funders. Health Policy, 2004; 2: 229-38. 16. Sturt J, Hearnshaw H, Farmer A, Dale J, Eldridge S. The Diabetes Manual trial protocol - a cluster randomized controlled trial of a self-management intervention for type 2 diabetes. BioMed Central Family Practice, 2006: ISRCTN06315411 (Electronic).
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/145

Data sourced from Thomson Reuters' Web of Knowledge

Request changes to a record

Actions (login required)

View Item