How the Illness Management and Recovery Program Enhanced Recovery of Persons With Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders: A Qualitative Study

Ethical and methodological issues in qualitative studies involving people with severe and persistent mental illness such as schizophrenia and other psychotic conditions: a critical review

“…The reason for this could be that the actual qualitative study was part of a larger research project that had gained ethical approval for the whole project (Burke, Wood, Zabel, Clark, & Morrison, 2016; Kidd et al, 2016; Singh, Jakhaia, Amonashvili, & Winch, 2016). Two of the reviewed studies, one from Denmark (Bjørkedal, Torsting, & Møller, 2016) and one from the Netherlands (van Langen, Beentjes, van Gaal, der Sanden, & Goossens, 2016), indicated that they had consulted their ethics boards, which had replied that no ethical approval was needed. Both of these studies, however, as well as most of the others included, were conducted in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (2013) and the key ethical principles of autonomy, confidentiality, protection, do no harm and informed consent.…”

“…The sample size varied between seven and 30 participants. In most of the articles, the authors discuss or mention the implications of a small sample size as a limitation for the research results (Bjørkedal et al, 2016; Blixen et al, 2016; Burke et al, 2016; de Jager et al, 2016; Jones et al, 2016; Landon, Shepherd, McGarry, Theadom, & Miller, 2016; Rhodes, Parrett, & Mason, 2016; Topor, Ljungqvist, & Strandberg, 2016), whereas other authors do not discuss this issue, even if fewer than 10 participants were interviewed (Singh et al, 2016; van Langen et al, 2016). …”

“…In some cases, this was probably due to the included interview study being part of a larger study (Blixen et al, 2016; Saavedra, López, Gonzáles, & Cubero, 2016; Waite et al, 2016). Nevertheless, for most of the studies recruitment was performed by the healthcare staff or clinicians, who approached eligible candidates for the studies in their daily work (Barut et al, 2016; Bjørkedal et al, 2016; Jones et al, 2016; Kidd et al, 2016; Landon et al, 2016; Paul, 2016; Rhodes et al, 2016; van Langen et al, 2016). …”

“…One of the authors in the reviewed articles was usually responsible for the main analysis and the other authors served as additional evaluators in the analysis procedure (Bjørkedal et al, 2016; Kidd et al, 2016; Paul, 2016; Rhodes et al, 2016). Others went a step further, and included more than one author to independently read the transcripts and initial analysis (Barut et al, 2016; Blixen et al, 2016; Burke et al, 2016; Jones et al, 2016; Landon et al, 2016; Saavedra et al, 2016; Topor et al, 2016; van Langen et al, 2016; Waite et al, 2016). …”

“…Besides the authors cross-checking and discussing the content during the analysis process, some of the included studies used member checks to ensure the accuracy of the experience and to make sure that the underlying meaning of all the statements was preserved when they were abstracted into categories and themes (de Jager et al, 2016; Kidd et al, 2016; Paul, 2016; Singh et al, 2016; van Langen et al, 2016). This was done, for example, by summarizing the findings at the end of the interview or by checking field notes with the participant (Kidd et al, 2016; Paul, 2016; van Langen et al, 2016). Participants could also review and discuss preliminary findings as well as member checks with others who were not involved in the study, such as an advisory group of people or a subsample with experience of mental illness (Kidd et al, 2016; Singh et al, 2016).…”