Peer researchers' experiences of a co-produced research project on supported decision-making

BACKGROUND

Making decisions about your own life is a key aspect of independence, freedom, human rights and social justice. There are disabled people who, without support, would be assessed as incapable of making certain decisions but with the appropriate support are capable of making those decisions and so to not provide that support infringes their rights, undermines their autonomy and reinforces their exclusion from society. However, there is limited research evidence available about disabled people's experiences of the range of approaches provided to support decision-making. This article will explore the experiences of four peer researchers who co-produced a research project on how people have, or have not been, supported to make their own decisions. Two of the peer researchers have experience of mental health problems and two are people with an intellectual disability. The article refers to peer research because its subject matter is the relevant lived experience of people. Peer research is therefore an approach within the broader areas of participatory research and co-production.

METHODS

The peer researchers interviewed 21 people with mental health problems and 20 people with an intellectual disability to gain an in-depth understanding of their experiences and preferences for how decision-making should be supported. Peer researcher experiences at each stage of the study from design to analysis were explored using data collected from the peer researchers via blogs written at early stages of the study, discussions at team meetings as the fieldwork progressed and at a final workshop at the end of the study which gave the peer researchers the opportunity to focus on their overall reflections of being a peer researcher. The article also discusses motivations to undertake the peer research role, the process of co-production and the challenges negotiated during the study.

RESULTS

The peer researchers reported a number of positive effects of being involved in the research project which included improvements in skills and self-confidence.

CONCLUSION

The peer researchers' involvement challenged assumptions about the inability of people with an intellectual disability and/or mental health problems to participate proactively in a research project whilst also highlighting the importance of training for all team members.

The contribution of peer research in evaluating complex public health interventions: examples from two UK community empowerment projects

BACKGROUND

Peer-research is steered and conducted by people with lived experience of the issues being researched. This paper explores the value of peer-research in two complex public health intervention evaluations in the UK.

METHODS

Reports from 18 peer research projects, completed by residents from 12 communities in the UK taking part in two community empowerment interventions, were analysed using cross-case analysis.

RESULTS

Undertaking peer research helped to build the evaluation and research skills within individual projects as well as providing data on other outcomes related to the programmes Theory of Change. Some peer researchers, however, felt unprepared for the activity despite support from the academic team and were unsatisfied with project outcomes. While peer research projects provided more opportunities for local residents to engage with the overall evaluations, there was an overreliance on people closely connected to the programmes to be peer researchers. The peer research projects explored topics that were broader than the aims and objectives of the overall programme evaluations. All provided insight into the context in which projects occurred, while some also informed understanding of programme change mechanisms.

CONCLUSIONS

Including peer research as part of complex public health intervention evaluations can help uncover important contextual and ecological details beyond the reach of more traditional evaluation data collection. Peer research can also empower and build research/evaluation capacity within communities, which is particularly pertinent for community empowerment interventions.

Collaboration with people with lived experience of prison: reflections on researching cancer care in custodial settings

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement is increasingly considered important in health research. This paper reflects, from both academic and lived experience perspectives, on involving people with lived experience in a study exploring cancer care in prison and how by doing this it enriched the research process.

METHODS

This paper is based on written and verbal reflections of the lived experience researchers and academic researchers involved in a study exploring the diagnosis and treatment of people with cancer in prison. The study comprised interviews with people with cancer in prison, prison healthcare staff, oncology specialists and custodial staff. Lived experience researchers were involved throughout the research process, including co-conducting interviews with patients and analysing interviews.

RESULTS

This paper highlights the importance and value of including lived experience researchers across the research process. We reflect on how lived experience of prison shapes the experience of conducting interviews and analysing data gathered in prison. We reflect on the working relationships between academic and lived experience researchers. We demonstrate how prison research is challenging, but collaboration between lived experience and academic researchers can help to better prepare for the field, to ask more meaningful questions and to create rapport with participants. These types of collaborations can be powerful avenues for skill development for both academic and lived experience researchers, but they require an investment of time and a willingness for shared learning.

CONCLUSIONS

For academics and lived experience researchers to collaborate successfully and meaningfully care needs to be taken to develop open, honest and equal working relationships. Skills development for academic and lived experience researchers is important. A commitment to building and maintaining relationships is crucial. Having a third party as a mediator can facilitate and foster these relationships. Particularly with people with lived experience of prison it is essential to put the 'do no harm' principle into practice and to have support in place to minimise this.

Research 101: A process for developing local guidelines for ethical research in heavily researched communities

Background

Marginalized communities often attract more than their share of research. Too often, this research benefits researchers disproportionately and leaves such communities feeling exploited, misrepresented, and exhausted. The Downtown Eastside (DTES) neighborhood of Vancouver, Canada, has been the site of multiple public health epidemics related to injection drug use as well as the site of much community-led resistance and struggle that has led to the development of cutting-edge harm reduction interventions (e.g., North America’s first supervised injection facility, Insite) and a strong sense of community organization. This background has made the DTES one of the most heavily researched communities in the world. Amidst ongoing experiences of unethical or disrespectful research engagement in the neighborhood, a collaboration between local academic researchers and community representatives developed to explore how we could work together to encourage more respectful, community-responsive research and discourage exploitative or disrespectful research.

Methods

We developed a series of six weekly workshops called “Research 101.” These workshops brought together approximately 13 representatives from peer-based organizations in the DTES with a variety of experiences with research. Research 101 created space for community members themselves to discuss the pitfalls and potential of research in their neighborhood and to express community expectations for more ethical and respectful research.

Results

We summarized workshop discussions in a co-authored “Manifesto for Ethical Research in the Downtown Eastside.” This document serves as a resource to empower community organizations to develop more equitable partnerships with researchers and help researchers ground their work in the principles of locally developed “community ethics.” Manifesto guidelines include increased researcher transparency, community-based ethical review of projects, empowering peer researchers in meaningful roles within a research project, and taking seriously the need for reciprocity in the research exchange.

Conclusions

Research 101 was a process for eliciting and presenting a local vision of “community ethics” in a heavily researched neighborhood to guide researchers and empower community organizations. Our ongoing work involves building consensus for these guidelines within the community and communicating these expectations to researchers and ethics offices at local universities. We also describe how our Research 101 process could be replicated in other heavily researched communities.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12954-019-0315-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.