"Are we genuinely going to have our voices heard?" The experience of co-producing a blended intervention to prevent relapse in obsessive-compulsive disorder: a qualitative study on the perspectives of experts by lived experience.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Josie F A Millar, Nina Higson-Sweeney, Tom A Jenkins, Erin F Waites, Sophie Minns
{"title":"\"Are we genuinely going to have our voices heard?\" The experience of co-producing a blended intervention to prevent relapse in obsessive-compulsive disorder: a qualitative study on the perspectives of experts by lived experience.","authors":"Josie F A Millar, Nina Higson-Sweeney, Tom A Jenkins, Erin F Waites, Sophie Minns","doi":"10.1186/s12888-024-06355-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Co-production involves researchers, practitioners and people with lived experience working in a collaborative manner, with shared power. The potential benefits of co-production are well documented. However, there is little research describing the experience of having been involved in co-production from the perspective of Experts By Lived Experience (EBLE). The aim of the present study is to explore the experiences of EBLE of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) on their involvement in co-producing a blended intervention to prevent relapse for OCD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Five EBLE took part in semi-structured interviews enquiring about their experiences of co-producing a relapse prevention intervention. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four themes were developed: (1) Welcome but unexpected therapeutic benefits; (2) The parameters of a safe space; (3) Genuine co-production brings meaningful change; and (4) Navigating the challenging terrain of co-production.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, EBLE reported their involvement in the co-production process to have had positive impacts on both the development of the intervention and their own personal recovery journey. EBLE valued the safety created within the group, and the importance this had for allowing them to speak open and honestly about their experiences and the difficulties that can arise with the nature of the work.</p>","PeriodicalId":9029,"journal":{"name":"BMC Psychiatry","volume":"24 1","pages":"906"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-024-06355-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Co-production involves researchers, practitioners and people with lived experience working in a collaborative manner, with shared power. The potential benefits of co-production are well documented. However, there is little research describing the experience of having been involved in co-production from the perspective of Experts By Lived Experience (EBLE). The aim of the present study is to explore the experiences of EBLE of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) on their involvement in co-producing a blended intervention to prevent relapse for OCD.

Methods: Five EBLE took part in semi-structured interviews enquiring about their experiences of co-producing a relapse prevention intervention. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.

Results: Four themes were developed: (1) Welcome but unexpected therapeutic benefits; (2) The parameters of a safe space; (3) Genuine co-production brings meaningful change; and (4) Navigating the challenging terrain of co-production.

Conclusions: Overall, EBLE reported their involvement in the co-production process to have had positive impacts on both the development of the intervention and their own personal recovery journey. EBLE valued the safety created within the group, and the importance this had for allowing them to speak open and honestly about their experiences and the difficulties that can arise with the nature of the work.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Psychiatry
BMC Psychiatry 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
4.50%
发文量
716
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Psychiatry is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of psychiatric disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信