Service user involvement enhanced the research quality in a study using interpretative phenomenological analysis -the power of multiple perspectives. Journal of Advanced Nursing 73(1), 265-278. doi: 10.1111/jan.13093 Abstract Aim. The aim of this study was to examine how service user involvement can contribute to the development of interpretative phenomenological analysis methodology and enhance research quality. Background. Interpretative phenomenological analysis is a qualitative methodology used in nursing research internationally to understand human experiences that are essential to the participants. Service user involvement is requested in nursing research. Design. We share experiences from 4 years of collaboration (2012)(2013)(2014)(2015) on a mental health promotion project, which involved an advisory team. Methods. Five research advisors either with a diagnosis or related to a person with severe mental illness constituted the team. They collaborated with the research fellow throughout the entire research process and have co-authored this article. We examined the joint process of analysing the empirical data from interviews. Our analytical discussions were audiotaped, transcribed and subsequently interpreted following the guidelines for good qualitative analysis in interpretative phenomenological analysis studies. Results. The advisory team became 'the researcher's helping hand'. Multiple perspectives influenced the qualitative analysis, which gave more insightful interpretations of nuances, complexity, richness or ambiguity in the interviewed participants' accounts. The outcome of the service user involvement was increased breadth and depth in findings. Conclusion. Service user involvement improved the research quality in a nursing research project on mental health promotion. The interpretative element of interpretative phenomenological analysis was enhanced by the emergence of multiple perspectives in the qualitative analysis of the empirical data. We argue This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

The study suggests that developing insight and acceptance, learning about warning signs, improving communications skills, learning to plan and solve problems, and becoming more independent are perceived as benefits of a psychoeducational family intervention.

No abstract

Background Family involvement for persons with psychotic disorders is under-implemented in mental health care, despite its firm scientific, economic, legal and moral basis. This appears to be the case in Norway, despite the presence of national guidelines providing both general recommendations on family involvement and support in the health- and care services, and specific guidance on family interventions for patients with psychotic disorders. The aim of this project is to improve mental health services and the psychosocial health of persons with psychotic disorders and their relatives, by implementing selected recommendations from the national guidelines in community mental health centres, and to evaluate this process. Methods The trial is cluster randomised, where 14 outpatient clusters from community mental health centres undergo stratified randomisation with an allocation ratio of 1:1. The seven intervention clusters will receive implementation support for 18 months, whereas the control clusters will receive the same support after this implementation period. The intervention consists of: 1. A basic level of family involvement and support. 2. Family psychoeducation in single-family groups. 3. Training and guidance of health care personnel. 4. A family coordinator and 5. Other implementation measures. Fidelity to the intervention will be measured four times in the intervention arm and two times in the control arm, and the differences in fidelity changes between the arms constitute the primary outcomes. In each arm, we aim to include 161 patients with psychotic disorders and their closest relative to fill in questionnaires at inclusion, 6 months and 12 months, measuring psychosocial health and satisfaction with services. Clinicians will contribute clinical data about patients at inclusion and 12 months. Use of health and welfare services and work participation, for both patients and relatives, will be retrieved from national registries. We will also perform qualitative interviews with patients, relatives, health care personnel and leaders. Finally, we will conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis and a political economy analysis. Discussion This project, with its multilevel and mixed methods approach, may contribute valuable knowledge to the fields of family involvement, mental health service research and implementation science. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03869177. Registered 11.03.19.

Background The uptake of family involvement in health care services for patients with psychotic disorders is poor, despite a clear evidence base, socio-economic and moral justifications, policy, and guideline recommendations. To respond to this knowledge-practice gap, we established the cluster randomised controlled trial: Implementation of guidelines on Family Involvement for persons with Psychotic disorders in community mental health centres (IFIP). Nested in the IFIP trial, this sub-study aims to explore what organisational and clinical barriers and facilitators local implementation teams and clinicians experience when implementing family involvement in mental health care for persons with psychotic disorders. Methods We performed 21 semi-structured focus groups, including 75 participants in total. Implementation team members were interviewed at the initial and middle phases of the intervention period, while clinicians who were not in the implementation team were interviewed in the late phase. A purposive sampling approach was used to recruit participants with various engagement in the implementation process. Data were analysed using manifest content analysis. Results Organisational barriers to involvement included: 1) Lack of shared knowledge, perceptions, and practice 2) Lack of routines 3) Lack of resources and logistics. Clinical barriers included: 4) Patient-related factors 5) Relative-related factors 6) Provider-related factors. Organisational facilitators for involvement included: 1) Whole-ward approach 2) Appointed and dedicated roles 3) Standardisation and routines. Clinical facilitators included: 4) External implementation support 5) Understanding, skills, and self-efficacy among mental health professionals 6) Awareness and attitudes among mental health professionals. Conclusions Implementing family involvement in health care services for persons with psychotic disorders is possible through a whole-ward and multi-level approach, ensured by organisational- and leadership commitment. Providing training in family psychoeducation to all staff, establishing routines to offer a basic level of family involvement to all patients, and ensuring that clinicians get experience with family involvement, reduce or dissolve core barriers. Having access to external implementation support appears decisive to initiate, promote and evaluate implementation. Our findings also point to future policy, practice and implementation developments to offer adequate treatment and support to all patients with severe mental illness and their families. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03869177. Registered 11.03.19.