Search

Background: Qualitative health research has the potential to answer important applied health research questions to inform nutrition and dietetics practice, education and policy. Qualitative health research is a distinct subdiscipline of qualitative inquiry that purposefully draws upon the context of healthcare and emphasises health and wellness. Methods: Qualitative health research is defined by two parameters: (1) the focus of the study and (2) the methods used. When considering the methods to be used, decisions are required about the type of data to be generated (e.g., transcripts, images and notes) and the process involved in data generation (e.g., interviews, elicitation strategies and observations) to answer the research question(s). Drawing upon examples from nutrition and dietetics literature, this paper provides a framework to support decision‐making for nutrition and dietetics researchers and clinician researchers designing conducting qualitative health research. Results: The guiding questions of the framework include: What types of data will be generated? Who is involved in data generation? Where will data generation occur? When will data generation occur? How will data be recorded and managed? and How will participants' and researchers' emotional safety be promoted? Conclusion: Questions about the types of data, those involved, where and when, as well as how safety can be maintained in data generation, not only support a more robust design and description of data generation methods but also keep the person at the centre of the research. Key points: In the discipline of qualitative health research, researchers purposefully consider the person at the centre of the research; adapt methods to consider the healthcare context; and prioritise individual health, wellness and capabilities.This humanisation of research requires researchers to select strategies that minimise the burden placed on participants and to make methodological decisions informed through consideration of participants' well‐being. This includes attention to the promotion of both participants' and researchers' emotional safety.To guide data generation decision‐making in the design and conduct of qualitative health research studies, a framework is presented with practical considerations on the 'who, what, when, where and how?' associated with data collection procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People with dementia are often marginalized and excluded from influence, also in relation to dementia research. There is, however, a growing requirement for inclusion through Patient and Public Involvement (PPI), but there is still limited knowledge on how researchers can fully benefit from the involvement of people with dementia in the development and testing of psychosocial interventions. This paper describes the results of a pan‐European consultation with people with dementia, synthesizing their views on outcomes of psychosocial interventions. Objective: To involve people with dementia in establishing what are meaningful outcomes when participating in psychosocial interventions. Setting and participants: Consultations took place at four divergent sites across Europe, involving twenty‐five people with dementia from nine European countries. Methods: The methods used for the consultation were developed through an iterative process involving people with dementia. Data from the consultation were analysed from a thematic analysis approach. Results: The results suggested that people with dementia wish to participate in interventions that enhance their well‐being, confidence, health, social participation and human rights. This highlights a need for improvements in psychosocial research to capture these outcomes. Discussion and conclusions: Involving people with dementia in discussions of psychosocial interventions has enhanced our understanding about meaningful outcome measures in research and methods of data collection. This study suggests that new outcome measures in psychosocial research are needed where concepts of positive psychology and social health can guide innovation and outcome measurement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The benefits of end‐user involvement in health‐care research are widely recognized by research agencies. There are few published evaluations of end‐user involvement in systematic reviews. Objectives: (i) Describe end‐user involvement in a complex mixed‐methods systematic review of ADHD in schools, (ii) reflect on the impact of end‐user involvement, (iii) highlight challenges and benefits experienced and (iv) provide suggestions to inform future involvement. Methods: End‐users were involved in all stages of the project, both as authors and as members of an advisory group. In addition, several events were held with groups of relevant end‐users during the project. Results: End‐user input (i) guided the direction of the research, (ii) contributed to a typology of interventions and outcomes, (iii) contributed to the direction of data analysis and (iv) contributed to the robustness of the syntheses by demonstrating the alignment of interim findings with lived experiences. Challenges included (i) managing expectations, (ii) managing the intensity of emotion, (iii) ensuring that involvement was fruitful for all not just the researcher, (iv) our capacity to communicate and manage the process and (v) engendering a sense of involvement amongst end‐users. Conclusions: End‐user involvement was an important aspect of this project. To minimize challenges in future projects, a recognition by the project management team and the funding provider that end‐user involvement even in evidence synthesis projects is resource intensive is essential to allow appropriate allocation of time and resources for meaningful engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]