Identifying the priorities for supervision by lived experience researchers: a Q sort study.

BACKGROUND: Lived experience researchers draw on their lived and living experiences to either lead on or inform research. Their personal experiences are relevant to the research topic and so they must manage the interplay of their health and healthcare experiences with the research, population, and data they work with, as well as the more general challenges of being a researcher. Lived experience researchers must navigate these dilemmas in addition to queries over their competency, due to issues relating to intersectionality and epistemic injustice. This justifies a motivation to better understand the experiences of lived experience researchers and develop appropriate and personalised supervision based on their preferences and needs. METHODS: Q methodology was used to identify a collection of identity-related issues that impact lived experience researchers during PhD research in the context of the UK. These issues were presented in the form of 54 statements to 18 lived experience researchers to prioritise as topics to explore in supervision. RESULT: It was found that lived experiences researchers could be grouped into three distinct factors following an inverted factor analysis: Factor 1: Strengthening my identity, skills, growth, and empowerment; Factor 2: Exploring the emotional and relational link I have with the research and Factor 3: Navigating my lived and professional experiences practically and emotionally. The findings suggest that there may be three types of lived experience researchers, each with different needs from supervision, suggesting the population is heterogeneous. CONCLUSION: The research identified a deeper understanding of the needs of lived experience researchers and highlights the importance of personalised supervision according to the individual needs of the researcher and their preferences for supervision. The findings reinforce the importance of integrating a clinical dimension into supervision to support the needs of all lived experience researchers.

Understanding the identity of lived experience researchers and providers: a conceptual framework and systematic narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Identity is how we understand ourselves and others through the roles or social groups we occupy. This review focuses on lived experience researchers and providers and the impact of these roles on identity. Lived experience researchers and providers use their lived experience of mental or physical disability either as experts by experience, researchers, peer workers, or mental health professionals with lived experience. They must navigate both professional and personal aspects to their roles which can be complex. Performing roles simultaneously embodying professional and lived experiences contribute towards a lack of clarity to identity. This is not adequately explained by the theoretical evidence base for identity. MAIN BODY: This systematic review and narrative synthesis aimed to provide a conceptual framework to understand how identity of lived experience researchers and providers is conceptualised. A search strategy was entered into EBSCO to access Academic search complete, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Psych Articles, and Connected papers. Out of the 2049 yielded papers, thirteen qualitative papers were eligible and synthesised, resulting in a conceptual framework. Five themes explained identity positions: Professional, Service user, Integrated, Unintegrated and Liminal. The EMERGES framework, an original conception of this review, found themes of: Enablers and Empowerment, Motivation, Empathy of the self and others, Recovery model and medical model, Growth and transformation, Exclusion and Survivor roots contributed to lived experience researcher and provider identities. CONCLUSIONS: The EMERGES framework offers a novel way to understand the identities of lived experience researchers and providers, helping support effective team working in mental health, education, and research settings.

Patients now commonly help to teach healthcare professionals from their own perspective of what it is like to experience health difficulties and healthcare services. Consequently, the needs of patients are being better recognised by healthcare providers. Patients are also involved in research. These types of patient involvement lead to improved research and care. Patients included in this type of work are frequently referred to as patient providers, service user researchers, peer workers, experts by experience or lived experience researchers and providers. This might mean they are no longer viewed as people who use services but as people who provide a service. This review helps us understand how those in these roles are affected and how they understand themselves. We found they were sometimes described as either patients or professionals. Sometimes they were described as both patient and professional at the same time. Other times they were described as somewhere between a patient or professional. There were other important ideas that affected how they viewed themselves because of these experiences. These included feelings of empowerment and motivation from doing this important teaching and clinical work. The roles gave them a better understanding of their own experiences. These roles led to a personal growth and sense of achievement. The experiences of exclusion, and of being a patient affected how patient providers think of themselves. This understanding can lead to patient providers being better understood and leads to better teaching and training of healthcare professionals.

Protocol of the process evaluation of cluster randomised control trial for estimating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a complex intervention to increase care home staff influenza vaccination rates compared to usual practice (FluCare).

BACKGROUND: Influenza (flu) vaccination rates in UK care home staff are extremely low. Less than 40% of staff in care homes are vaccinated for influenza (flu), presenting risks to the health of frail residents and potential staff absence from cross-infection. Staff often do not perceive a need for vaccination and are unaware they are entitled to free flu vaccination. The FluCare study, a cluster randomised control trial (RCT), uses behavioural interventions to address barriers. Videos, posters, and leaflets are intended to raise awareness of flu vaccination benefits and debunk myths. On-site staff vaccination clinics increase accessibility. Financial incentives to care homes for improved vaccination rates and regular monitoring influence the environment. This paper outlines the planned process evaluation which will describe the intervention's mechanisms of action, explain any changes in outcomes, identify local adaptations, and inform design of the implementation phase. METHODS/DESIGN: A mixed method process evaluation to inform the interpretation of trial findings. OBJECTIVES: • Describe the intervention as delivered in terms of dose and fidelity, including adaptations and variations across care homes. • Explore the effects of individual intervention components on primary outcomes. • Investigate the mechanisms of impact. • Describe the perceived effectiveness of relevant intervention components (including videos, leaflets, posters, and flu clinics) from participant perspectives (care home manager, care home staff, flu clinic providers). • Describe the characteristics of care homes and participants to assess reach. A purposive sample of twenty care homes (ten in the intervention arm, ten in the control arm) for inclusion in the process evaluation. Data will include (1) study records including care home site profiles, (2) responses to a mechanism of action questionnaire, and (3) semi-structured interviews with care home staff and clinic providers. Quantitative data will be descriptively reported. Interview data will be thematically analysed and then categories mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework. DISCUSSION: Adopting this systematic and comprehensive process evaluation approach will help ensure data is captured on all aspects of the trial, enabling a full understanding of the intervention implementation and RCT findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN22729870. Registered on 24 August 2022.

Taking hold of some kind of life: how developmental tasks relate to trajectories of well-being during the transition to adulthood.

The purpose of this study was to examine how successes and difficulties with various developmental tasks of early adulthood relate to the course of well-being. Three waves of national panel data spanning ages 18-26 were drawn from the Monitoring the Future study (N = 3518). Based on self-reports, respondents were assigned scores (succeeding, maintaining, or stalling) to reflect progress in seven domains of developmental tasks: education, work, financial autonomy, romantic involvement, peer involvement, substance abuse avoidance, and citizenship. We identified trajectory groups of well-being (based on self-esteem, self-efficacy, and social support) that reflect diverging trajectories during the transition: steady-high versus high-decreasing, and low-increasing versus steady-low. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to predict membership in the diverging well-being trajectory groups as a function of developmental task domain scores. Maintaining or gaining a salutary trajectory of well-being across the transition was found to be a function of more success and less stalling across the developmental tasks, specifically in the work, romantic involvement, and citizenship domains. Compensatory effects (e.g., succeeding in education compensated for not succeeding in work) and threshold effects (e.g., succeeding in both achievement and affiliation domains was necessary for a salutary trajectory) were also found.