Melanie Jordan1, Emma Rowley2, Richard Morriss3, Nick Manning4. 1. National Institute for Health Research CLAHRC-NDL, Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust & University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. 2. NIHR CLAHRC East Midlands & Centre for Health Innovation, Leadership and Learning, Nottingham University Business School, Nottingham, UK. 3. Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. 4. Institute of Mental Health, Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust & University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This article debates interview data from service users who engaged with the work of a Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC). The evidence base, to date, concerning the nature of CLAHRC work at the frontline (i.e. What is it actually like to do CLAHRC work?) is meagre; thus, this article represents an original contribution to that literature. Further, this article analyses service users' participation in research - as members of the research team - and so contributes to the body of developing literature regarding involvement too. OBJECTIVE: This article explores the nature of the Research Team-Service User relationship, plus associated roles, relations and responsibilities of collaborative health research. DESIGN: Qualitative social science research was undertaken in a health-care research organization utilizing interview method and a medical sociology and organizational sociology theoretical framework for analysis. Data utilized originate from a larger evaluation study that focuses on the CLAHRC as an iterative organization and explores members' experiences. RESULTS: There can be a disparity between initial expectations and actual experiences of involvement for service users. Therefore, as structured via 'The Three Rs' (Roles, Relations and Responsibilities), aspects of the relationship are evaluated (e.g. motivation, altruism, satisfaction, transparency, scope, feedback, communication, time). Regarding the inclusion of service users in health research teams, a careful consideration of 'The Three Rs' is required to ensure expectations match experiences.
BACKGROUND: This article debates interview data from service users who engaged with the work of a Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC). The evidence base, to date, concerning the nature of CLAHRC work at the frontline (i.e. What is it actually like to do CLAHRC work?) is meagre; thus, this article represents an original contribution to that literature. Further, this article analyses service users' participation in research - as members of the research team - and so contributes to the body of developing literature regarding involvement too. OBJECTIVE: This article explores the nature of the Research Team-Service User relationship, plus associated roles, relations and responsibilities of collaborative health research. DESIGN: Qualitative social science research was undertaken in a health-care research organization utilizing interview method and a medical sociology and organizational sociology theoretical framework for analysis. Data utilized originate from a larger evaluation study that focuses on the CLAHRC as an iterative organization and explores members' experiences. RESULTS: There can be a disparity between initial expectations and actual experiences of involvement for service users. Therefore, as structured via 'The Three Rs' (Roles, Relations and Responsibilities), aspects of the relationship are evaluated (e.g. motivation, altruism, satisfaction, transparency, scope, feedback, communication, time). Regarding the inclusion of service users in health research teams, a careful consideration of 'The Three Rs' is required to ensure expectations match experiences.
Authors: Janneke Elisabeth Elberse; Carina Anna Cornelia Maria Pittens; Tjard de Cock Buning; Jacqueline Elisabeth Willy Broerse Journal: Health Policy Date: 2012-06-25 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Christi J Nierse; Karen Schipper; Ezra van Zadelhoff; Joos van de Griendt; Tineke A Abma Journal: Health Expect Date: 2011-02-17 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Jo Rycroft-Malone; Joyce E Wilkinson; Christopher R Burton; Gavin Andrews; Steven Ariss; Richard Baker; Sue Dopson; Ian Graham; Gill Harvey; Graham Martin; Brendan G McCormack; Sophie Staniszewska; Carl Thompson Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2011-07-19 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Julia Keenan; Fiona Poland; Jonathan Boote; Amanda Howe; Helena Wythe; Anna Varley; Penny Vicary; Lisa Irvine; Amander Wellings Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-05-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Trisha Greenhalgh; Lisa Hinton; Teresa Finlay; Alastair Macfarlane; Nick Fahy; Ben Clyde; Alan Chant Journal: Health Expect Date: 2019-04-22 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Laura J E Brown; Tommy Dickinson; Stuart Smith; Christine Brown Wilson; Maria Horne; Kate Torkington; Paul Simpson Journal: Health Expect Date: 2017-11-03 Impact factor: 3.377