'What difference does it make?' Finding evidence of the impact of mental health service user researchers on research into the experiences of detained psychiatric patients.

BACKGROUND: Interest in the involvement of members of the public in health services research is increasingly focussed on evaluation of the impact of involvement on the research process and the production of knowledge about health. Service user involvement in mental health research is well-established, yet empirical studies into the impact of involvement are lacking.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the potential to provide empirical evidence of the impact of service user researchers (SURs) on the research process.
DESIGN: The study uses a range of secondary analyses of interview transcripts from a qualitative study of the experiences of psychiatric patients detained under the Mental Health Act (1983) to compare the way in which SURs and conventional university researchers (URs) conduct and analyse qualitative interviews.
RESULTS: Analyses indicated some differences in the ways in which service user- and conventional URs conducted qualitative interviews. SURs were much more likely to code (analyse) interview transcripts in terms of interviewees' experiences and feelings, while conventional URs coded the same transcripts largely in terms of processes and procedures related to detention. The limitations of a secondary analysis based on small numbers of researchers are identified and discussed.
CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates the potential to develop a methodologically robust approach to evaluate empirically the impact of SURs on research process and findings, and is indicative of the potential benefits of collaborative research for informing evidence-based practice in mental health services.