Multiple stakeholders' perspectives on patient and public involvement in community mental health services research: A qualitative analysis

Assessing the impact of university students' involvement in the first year of Nurture-U: a national student wellbeing research project

BACKGROUND

Students experience lower levels of wellbeing than the general, age-matched population. A whole-university approach to mental health is encouraged, which must work for individuals from all backgrounds and experiences. Student input is vital in researching and designing these solutions. Nurture-U is a national, large-scale research project exploring better ways to support student wellbeing, with a Student Advisory Group (SAG) that feeds into project decision making. With the first year of the project now completed, we now critically review the processes and effectiveness of the SAG and how well the project is engaging and working with students.

METHODS

Assessment of the SAG's impact on the project, the student advisors, and the researchers was undertaken through a content analysis of team meetings and collection of advisor and researcher feedback using the Patient Engagement Quality Guidance Tool.

RESULTS

142 students worked on different tasks in the first year of the Nurture-U project. The SAG was involved in the project branding and marketing, and in the development and co-design of interventions and tools. They reported a positive experience, with involvement boosting confidence. They felt valued but reported not always knowing whether their input was implemented in final decisions. They also recommended different methods of providing feedback. Researchers found student input beneficial to communicate the viewpoint of a different generation and increase the relevance of the study, but also suggested improvements for communication between the research team and the student group.

CONCLUSIONS

This critical reflection of the SAG's public advisor role in this large-scale research project was important in highlighting what worked well and areas to improve. As the project unfolds, we aim to adapt our methods of student input, increase the transparency of decision-making processes, and in turn increase student-led decision making within the project.

Healthcare Professionals' Experiences with Patient Participation in a Mental Healthcare Centre: A Qualitative Study

INTRODUCTION

Patient participation is a cornerstone of the debate concerning healthcare professionals and patients of mental health centres. It constitutes an objective in government health policy in Scandinavia and other Western countries. However, little is known about the experiences of healthcare professionals in mental healthcare practices involving patients under their treatment and care.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the experiences of healthcare professionals with patient participation in the context of a mental health centre.

METHODOLOGICAL DESIGN

Four focus group interviews with healthcare professionals reflected differing experiences with unfolding patient participation in clinical practices in four wards of a mental health centre. A content analysis developed and framed themes.

RESULTS

Patient participation was based on structural conditions, which shows that predetermined structural methods predominantly control involvement. The structural methods are seen as promoting participation from the patient's perspective. At the same time, the methods also enable taking account of the individual patient's wishes and needs for involvement.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This study illuminates the meaning of patient participation in a mental health centre based on the social interactions among nurses and other healthcare professionals. The approach can contribute to dealing with the challenges of incorporating patient participation as an ideology for all patients in a psychiatric context, which is important knowledge for healthcare professionals.

Selection of endpoints in breast cancer clinical trials: a qualitative study of key trial stakeholders

Clinical trial endpoints are fundamental for evaluating the safety and efficacy of cancer therapies, yet it is not well understood how they are selected or the role of stakeholder groups in deciding endpoints. This study aimed to explore how clinical trial endpoints are selected in breast cancer trials of anti-cancer drugs through semi structured interviews with purposively selected stakeholders involved in breast cancer clinical trials (clinicians, consumers, pharmaceutical company representatives, and members of drug regulatory agencies). Participants were asked to describe the process of selecting trial endpoints. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive thematic analysis supported by NVivo software. Saturation of the main themes was reached and the final sample included 25 participants from 14 countries (9 clinicians, 7 consumers, 5 members of regulatory agencies, 4 pharmaceutical company representatives). Pharmaceutical companies were almost always identified as the main decision maker. While most consumers and pharmaceutical company representatives felt clinicians and consumers influenced trial design, some clinicians and regulators reported consumers and clinicians had little influence. Factors identified as important considerations in determining trial endpoints included the main goal of the trial, established standardised endpoints, resources, and the investigational agent studied. All pharmaceutical advisors reported that meeting the requirements for regulatory approval was the major factor considered. Clinical trial endpoint selection is largely decided by the pharmaceutical industry, driven by requirements for regulatory approval. Given the limited influence from clinicians and consumers, guidance by regulatory agencies will be important for future inclusion of novel endpoints in clinical trials.

Embedding lived experience into mental health academic research organizations: Critical reflections

Background

As part of a growing emphasis on engaging people with lived experience of mental health conditions in mental health research, there are increasing calls to consider and embed lived experience throughout academic research institutes. This extends beyond the engagement of lay patients and also considers the potential roles of academic researchers with lived experience. When the lived experience of academic researchers is applied to academic work, there is the potential to improve the relevance of the research, while destigmatizing mental illness within academia. However, there are different and often contrasting perspectives on the way a lived experience academic researcher initiative should be implemented.

Objectives

This article describes some of the key issues to be considered when planning an initiative that leverages and values the lived experience of academic researchers, including the advantages and disadvantages of each potential approach.

Discussion & Recommendations

Institutions are encouraged to reflect on the ways that they might support and value lived experience among academic researchers. In developing any such initiative, institutions are encouraged to be transparent about their objectives and values, undertake a careful planning process, involve researchers with lived experience from the outset and consistently challenge the stigma experienced by academic researchers with lived experience.

Patient or Public Contribution

Multiple authors are academic researchers with lived experience of mental health conditions.