Best Practices Guidelines for the Engagement of People With Lived Experience and Family Members in Mental Health and Substance Use Health Research: A Modified Delphi Consensus Study

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Lisa D. Hawke, Wuraola Dada-Phillips, Hajar Seiyad, Josh Orson, Lianne Goldsmith, Susan Conway, Adam Jordan, Natasha Y. Sheikhan, Melissa Hiebert, Sean Kidd, Kerry Kuluski
{"title":"Best Practices Guidelines for the Engagement of People With Lived Experience and Family Members in Mental Health and Substance Use Health Research: A Modified Delphi Consensus Study","authors":"Lisa D. Hawke,&nbsp;Wuraola Dada-Phillips,&nbsp;Hajar Seiyad,&nbsp;Josh Orson,&nbsp;Lianne Goldsmith,&nbsp;Susan Conway,&nbsp;Adam Jordan,&nbsp;Natasha Y. Sheikhan,&nbsp;Melissa Hiebert,&nbsp;Sean Kidd,&nbsp;Kerry Kuluski","doi":"10.1111/hex.70152","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>People with lived experience of mental health and/or substance use conditions and their families (PWLE) are increasingly engaged in research, yet rigorous guidelines for engagement are lacking. This study aims to co-design best practice guidelines to support the authentic, meaningful engagement of PWLE in mental health and/or substance use health research.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A multi-panel modified Delphi study was conducted with 61 expert panelists (35 PWLE and family members, 26 researchers/research support staff from across Canada). Participants rated 56 recommendations for importance and clarity. Consensus was defined as ≥ 70% of participants rating items at 6 or 7 on a 7-point Likert scale (‘very important’ or ‘essential’). Qualitative feedback was analysed using content analysis to identify new items and reviewed for improvements in item clarity. After each round, items not meeting the established threshold of importance were removed. Items with low clarity scores were reworded. A PWLE advisory panel was actively involved throughout the study's design, implementation, interpretation, and reporting, ensuring that the perspectives of people with lived experience were integrated throughout the research process.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Three Delphi Rounds were conducted. In Round 1, importance ratings ranged from 51.7% to 96.7% of participants ranking the items above the established threshold (average 80.1%), with clarity ratings ranging from 39.3% to 86.9% (average 70.7%) and an average importance coefficient of variation (CV) of 0.16. Four items were deleted, two new items were added and fifty-five items were revised. In Round 2, 60 (98.4%) participants responded. Importance ratings ranged from 57.6% to 96.7% (average 80.2%; average CV = 0.20). Clarity ratings ranged from 50.9% to 93.2% (average 77.9%). Five items were deleted and eleven revised. In Round 3, 60 (98.4%) participants provided importance ratings ranging from 66.7% to 98.3% (average 80.8%; average CV = 0.20), and clarity ratings ranging from 63.3% to 94.9% (average 81.1%). Three items were deleted and nine were revised. Forty-four final best practices are proposed.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>These co-developed best practice guidelines offer recommendations for meaningful PWLE engagement in mental health and/or substance use health research. By following these guidelines, research teams can ensure that PWLE contributions are genuinely valued and effectively integrated, ultimately enhancing the quality and impact of the research and fostering authentic collaboration.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patient and public involvement</h3>\n \n <p>People with lived experience were engaged throughout the project as key team members, from a patient-oriented research perspective. They are also co-authors on this manuscript.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11745228/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Expectations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70152","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

People with lived experience of mental health and/or substance use conditions and their families (PWLE) are increasingly engaged in research, yet rigorous guidelines for engagement are lacking. This study aims to co-design best practice guidelines to support the authentic, meaningful engagement of PWLE in mental health and/or substance use health research.

Methods

A multi-panel modified Delphi study was conducted with 61 expert panelists (35 PWLE and family members, 26 researchers/research support staff from across Canada). Participants rated 56 recommendations for importance and clarity. Consensus was defined as ≥ 70% of participants rating items at 6 or 7 on a 7-point Likert scale (‘very important’ or ‘essential’). Qualitative feedback was analysed using content analysis to identify new items and reviewed for improvements in item clarity. After each round, items not meeting the established threshold of importance were removed. Items with low clarity scores were reworded. A PWLE advisory panel was actively involved throughout the study's design, implementation, interpretation, and reporting, ensuring that the perspectives of people with lived experience were integrated throughout the research process.

Results

Three Delphi Rounds were conducted. In Round 1, importance ratings ranged from 51.7% to 96.7% of participants ranking the items above the established threshold (average 80.1%), with clarity ratings ranging from 39.3% to 86.9% (average 70.7%) and an average importance coefficient of variation (CV) of 0.16. Four items were deleted, two new items were added and fifty-five items were revised. In Round 2, 60 (98.4%) participants responded. Importance ratings ranged from 57.6% to 96.7% (average 80.2%; average CV = 0.20). Clarity ratings ranged from 50.9% to 93.2% (average 77.9%). Five items were deleted and eleven revised. In Round 3, 60 (98.4%) participants provided importance ratings ranging from 66.7% to 98.3% (average 80.8%; average CV = 0.20), and clarity ratings ranging from 63.3% to 94.9% (average 81.1%). Three items were deleted and nine were revised. Forty-four final best practices are proposed.

Conclusion

These co-developed best practice guidelines offer recommendations for meaningful PWLE engagement in mental health and/or substance use health research. By following these guidelines, research teams can ensure that PWLE contributions are genuinely valued and effectively integrated, ultimately enhancing the quality and impact of the research and fostering authentic collaboration.

Patient and public involvement

People with lived experience were engaged throughout the project as key team members, from a patient-oriented research perspective. They are also co-authors on this manuscript.

Abstract Image

有生活经验的人和家庭成员参与精神健康和物质使用健康研究的最佳实践指南:一项修改的德尔菲共识研究。
有精神健康和/或物质使用状况生活经历的人及其家庭(PWLE)越来越多地参与研究,但缺乏严格的参与指南。本研究旨在共同设计最佳实践指南,以支持残疾人真实、有意义地参与精神卫生和/或物质使用卫生研究。方法:对61名专家(35名PWLE及其家属,26名研究人员/研究支持人员)进行多小组修正德尔菲研究。参与者根据重要性和清晰度对56条建议进行了评级。共识定义为≥70%的参与者在7分李克特量表(“非常重要”或“必要”)上将项目评为6或7分。使用内容分析对定性反馈进行分析,以确定新项目,并审查项目清晰度的改进。在每一轮之后,不符合既定重要性阈值的项目被删除。清晰度低的项目被改写。在整个研究的设计、实施、解释和报告过程中,一个PWLE顾问小组积极参与,确保在整个研究过程中融入有生活经验的人的观点。结果:进行了三次德尔菲轮调查。在第一轮中,重要性评分从51.7%到96.7%的参与者将项目排在既定阈值之上(平均80.1%),清晰度评分从39.3%到86.9%(平均70.7%),平均重要变异系数(CV)为0.16。删除4项,新增2项,修改55项。在第2轮中,60名(98.4%)参与者做出了回应。重要性评分从57.6%到96.7%(平均80.2%;平均CV = 0.20)。清晰度评分从50.9%到93.2%(平均77.9%)。删除5项,修改11项。在第3轮中,60名(98.4%)参与者提供的重要性评分范围从66.7%到98.3%(平均80.8%;平均CV = 0.20),清晰度评分从63.3%到94.9%(平均81.1%)。删除3项,修改9项。最后提出了44种最佳做法。结论:这些共同制定的最佳实践指南为有意义的工作人员参与精神卫生和/或物质使用健康研究提供了建议。通过遵循这些指导方针,研究团队可以确保PWLE的贡献得到真正的重视和有效的整合,最终提高研究的质量和影响,促进真正的合作。患者和公众参与:从以患者为导向的研究角度来看,有生活经验的人作为关键团队成员参与了整个项目。他们也是这份手稿的共同作者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Expectations
Health Expectations 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
9.40%
发文量
251
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Expectations promotes critical thinking and informed debate about all aspects of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care, health policy and health services research including: • Person-centred care and quality improvement • Patients'' participation in decisions about disease prevention and management • Public perceptions of health services • Citizen involvement in health care policy making and priority-setting • Methods for monitoring and evaluating participation • Empowerment and consumerism • Patients'' role in safety and quality • Patient and public role in health services research • Co-production (researchers working with patients and the public) of research, health care and policy Health Expectations is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, review articles and critical commentaries. It includes papers which clarify concepts, develop theories, and critically analyse and evaluate specific policies and practices. The Journal provides an inter-disciplinary and international forum in which researchers (including PPIE researchers) from a range of backgrounds and expertise can present their work to other researchers, policy-makers, health care professionals, managers, patients and consumer advocates.
×
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