3.8 Article

Peer interviewers in mental health services research

出版社

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/JMHTEP-02-2016-0012

关键词

Participatory research; Mental health services research; Peer respites; Service-user research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose - Inclusion of members of the target population in research is an increasing priority in the social sciences; however, relatively few studies employ approaches that involve persons with lived experience of the mental health system in mental health services research, particularly in the USA. The purpose of this paper is to describe one such approach, the employment of peer interviewers in the evaluation of a peer respite program. Design/methodology/approach - The paper describes how peer interviewers were recruited, hired, trained, and supervised. The authors discuss some benefits and challenges associated with the approach. Findings - Peer interviewer benefits and challenges: the shared lived experience between the peer interviewers and study participants contributed to increased comfort and a high response rate overall. The study opened up professional opportunities for peers, but inconsistent work hours were a challenge and resulted in turnover and difficulty filling vacant positions. The lead evaluator and supervisors worked closely with peer interviewers to ensure conflict of interest was mitigated to reduce bias. Originality/value - This paper adds to the limited literature describing peer representation in research, outlining one avenue for partnering with peers to align research with the values of the intervention under study without compromising - and perhaps increasing - scientific rigor. The authors expect that even more peer involvement in the oversight, analysis, and interpretation of results would have improved the overall quality of the evaluation. Future efforts should build upon and incorporate the approach alongside more comprehensive efforts to partner with service users.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据