Claudio Di Lorito1, Linda Birt2, Fiona Poland2, Emese Csipke3, Dianne Gove4, Ana Diaz-Ponce4, Martin Orrell1. 1. Division of Psychiatry and Applied Psychology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. 2. School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. 3. Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK. 4. Alzheimer Europe, Luxembourg.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is limited literature around peer research in dementia. This study aims to identify the benefits, the risks and the practical challenges and to develop a model of good practice in peer research with people with dementia. METHODS: We searched on PsycInfo, PubMed and Google Scholar for empirical investigations or discussion papers on peer research. Given the limited literature in the field of dementia, we included studies with groups who share similar demographics (older people), experience of stigma (mental health service users) and exclusion from research (people with learning disabilities). We applied no restrictions on language and publication date. ANALYSIS: We identified three themes: the potential benefits, the potential risks and the practical challenges of peer research. We developed a model of good practice. The European Working Group of People with Dementia reviewed our paper and added to our findings. RESULTS: We included seven papers. Potential benefits of peer research included enriched data and empowering people with dementia. Potential risks included power differentials between researchers and issues of representativeness. The practical issues for good practice included the training of peer researchers, defining involvement and roles, working with cognitive impairment and considering resource implications. The European Working Group of People with Dementia emphasised the importance of equality issues. CONCLUSION: Involving people with dementia in peer research can generate several benefits, including empowerment and opportunities for inclusion for the peer researchers and the research participants living with dementia, challenging academics' traditional views on research processes and gathering enhanced research data. There remains a need for further research on the impact of peer research in dementia studies.
BACKGROUND: There is limited literature around peer research in dementia. This study aims to identify the benefits, the risks and the practical challenges and to develop a model of good practice in peer research with people with dementia. METHODS: We searched on PsycInfo, PubMed and Google Scholar for empirical investigations or discussion papers on peer research. Given the limited literature in the field of dementia, we included studies with groups who share similar demographics (older people), experience of stigma (mental health service users) and exclusion from research (people with learning disabilities). We applied no restrictions on language and publication date. ANALYSIS: We identified three themes: the potential benefits, the potential risks and the practical challenges of peer research. We developed a model of good practice. The European Working Group of People with Dementia reviewed our paper and added to our findings. RESULTS: We included seven papers. Potential benefits of peer research included enriched data and empowering people with dementia. Potential risks included power differentials between researchers and issues of representativeness. The practical issues for good practice included the training of peer researchers, defining involvement and roles, working with cognitive impairment and considering resource implications. The European Working Group of People with Dementia emphasised the importance of equality issues. CONCLUSION: Involving people with dementia in peer research can generate several benefits, including empowerment and opportunities for inclusion for the peer researchers and the research participants living with dementia, challenging academics' traditional views on research processes and gathering enhanced research data. There remains a need for further research on the impact of peer research in dementia studies.
Authors: F Hoekstra; K J Mrklas; M Khan; R C McKay; M Vis-Dunbar; K M Sibley; T Nguyen; I D Graham; H L Gainforth Journal: Health Res Policy Syst Date: 2020-05-25
Authors: Tracey McConnell; Tristan Sturm; Mabel Stevenson; Noleen McCorry; Michael Donnelly; Brian J Taylor; Paul Best Journal: Res Involv Engagem Date: 2019-06-10
Authors: Claudio Di Lorito; Maureen Godfrey; Marianne Dunlop; Alessandro Bosco; Kristian Pollock; Veronika van der Wardt; Rowan H Harwood Journal: Health Expect Date: 2020-03-17 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Stefan Teipel; Alexandra König; Jesse Hoey; Jeff Kaye; Frank Krüger; Julie M Robillard; Thomas Kirste; Claudio Babiloni Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Stephen Bell; Peter Aggleton; Andrew Lockyer; Tellisa Ferguson; Walbira Murray; Bronwyn Silver; John Kaldor; Lisa Maher; James Ward Journal: Qual Health Res Date: 2020-10-03