Hearing the voices of service user researchers in collaborative qualitative data analysis: The case for multiple coding

Health Expectations

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2013, Pages

  Sweeney, Angela ^a,b   Greenwood, Kathryn E ^b,c,d   Williams, Sally ^d   Wykes, Til ^b   Rose, Diana S ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

^d SOUTH LONDON AND MAUDSLEY NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Collaborative research; Multi disciplinary teams; Multiple coding; Multiple perspectives; Qualitative data analysis; Service user researchers

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CODING; COGNITIVE THERAPY; COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH; COOPERATION; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION; METHODOLOGY; MULTI-DISCIPLINARY TEAMS; MULTIPLE CODING; MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES; PSYCHOSIS; QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SERVICE USER RESEARCHERS; STANDARD; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH; MULTI-DISCIPLINARY TEAMS; MULTIPLE CODING; MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES; QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS; SERVICE USER RESEARCHERS;

CLINICAL CODING; COGNITIVE THERAPY; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; DATA COLLECTION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; FOCUS GROUPS; HEALTH PRIORITIES; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION; PSYCHOTIC DISORDERS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84887868185     PISSN: 13696513     EISSN: 13697625     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00810.x     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Barry C, Britten N, Barber N et al. Using reflexivity to optimize teamwork in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 1999; 9: 26-44.
2. Rose D. Telling different stories: user involvement in research. Research, Policy and Planning, 2004; 22: 23-30.
3. Bengtsson-Tops A, Svensson B. Mental health users' experiences of being interviewed by another user in a research project: a qualitative study. Journal of Mental Health, 2010; 19: 234-242.
4. Trivedi P, Wykes T. From passive subjects to equal partners: qualitative review of user involvement in research. British Journal of Psychiatry, 2002; 181: 468-472.
5. Gillard S, Borschmann R, Turner K et al. 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. Health Expectations, 2010; 13: 185-194.
6. Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care: assessing quality in qualitative research. British Medical Journal, 2000; 320: 50-52.
7. Greenwood K, Sweeney A, Williams S et al. CHoice of Outcome in Cbt for psychosEs (CHOICE): the development of a new service user-led outcome measure of CBT for psychosis. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 2010; 36: 126-135.
8. Barbour R. Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? British Medical Journal, 2001; 322: 1115-1117.
9. Thompson C, McCaughan D, Cullum N et al. Increasing the visibility of coding decisions in team-based qualitative research in nursing. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 2004; 41: 15-20.
10. Morse J. Perfectly healthy, but dead: the myth of interrater reliability. Qualitative Health Research, 1997; 7: 445-447.
11. Yardley L. Dilemmas in qualitative health research. Psychology and Health, 2000; 15: 215-228.
12. Morse J. Reconceptualizing qualitative evidence. Qualitative Health Research, 2006; 16: 415-422.
13. Ahuvia A. Traditional, interpretive, and reception based content analyses: improving the ability of content analysis to address issues of pragmatic and theoretical concern. Social Indicators Research, 2001; 54: 139-172.
14. Braun V, Clarke V. Using Thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2006; 3: 77-101.
15. Fereday J, Muir-Cochrane E. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2006; 5: 1-11.
16. Boyatzis R. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. London: Sage, 1998.
17. Green J. Commentary: grounded theory and the constant comparative method. British Medical Journal, 1998; 316: 1064-1065.
18. Rose D. Having a diagnosis is a qualification for the job. British Medical Journal, 2003; 326: 1331.
19. Richards L. Qualitative teamwork: making it work. Qualitative Health Research, 1999; 9: 7-10.
20. Driedger S, Gallois C, Sanders C et al. Finding common ground in team-based qualitative research using the convergent interviewing method. Qualitative Health Research, 2006; 16: 1145-1157.
21. Faulkner A, Thomas P. User-led research and evidence based medicine. British Journal of Psychiatry, 2002; 14: 4-9.
22. Cotterell P. Exploring the value of service user involvement in data analysis: 'Our interpretation is about what lies below the surface'. Educational Action Research, 2008; 16: 5-17.
23. Gillard S, Borschmann R, Turner K et al. Producing different analytical narratives, coproducing integrated analytical narrative: a qualitative study of UK detained mental health patient experiences involving service user researchers. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2012; 15: 239-254.
24. Clark C, Scott E, Boydell K et al. Effects of client interviewers on client-reported satisfaction with mental health services. Psychiatric Services, 1999; 50: 961-963.