Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Mhrn liam ennis


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Mhrn liam ennis

  1. 1. Service user involvement and study success An analysis of the MHRN portfoliodatabase Liam Ennis and Professor Til Wykes
  2. 2. Background Many funders now require service user involvement (or justification why not) MHRN directive = assisting involvement
  3. 3. Involvement – what “When we talk about service user involvement, we mean the active involvement of service users, not their passive involvement as recipients of services or information. Involving is often described as doing things with or by people, rather than for or to them. ‘Involvement’ covers a range of activities, from consulting service users abut their views or wishes, through to working in partnership with them to develop projects or services, right up to service users leading projects, services or organisations” (Taken from TwoCan Associates)
  4. 4. Involvement – why Ensuring that research questions are those that are valued by service users Enhancing translational value of research Improving quality and feasibility
  5. 5. Involvement – wheree.g. Setting research priorities (Rose et al, 2008; Thornicroft et al, 2002) Choosing/generating outcomes (Crawford et al, 2011; Evans et al, 2012) Alternative methodologies (Rose et al, 2011) BUT no studies investigate whether there are benefits to the study itself
  6. 6. The present study Aims to establish whether: 1) Service user involvement has increased over time 2) Particular factors are associated with involvement 3) Service user involvement is associated with recruitment success
  7. 7. Data source MHRN portfolio database Contains all adopted studies since 2004 N = 374
  8. 8. Measures Level of service user involvement:1. Consultation2. Researcher-initiated collaboration3. Jointly/service-user initiated collaboration, or user-controlled studies
  9. 9. Measures Study complexity Primary CSG Funding body ◦ NIHR/MRC/Charity/International/Government Study characteristics ◦ Randomised/Intervention/Follow up Adoption order
  10. 10. Outcomes Levels of servicer user involvement Successful recruitment (>90% - nationally set target by NIHR)
  11. 11. Statistical analysis Change in service user involvement over time was assessed by correlating adoption order with level of service user involvement using Pearson’s product moment Predictors of levels of service user involvement were explored using multinomial logistic regression Associations with participant recruitment were explored using binary logistic regression (N = 135)
  12. 12. Results Service user involvement was modestly correlated with adoption order, r = ·12, p <· 05 showing that involvement has increased over time.
  13. 13. Predictor Walds chi-square p odds ratioCSG Psychotic disorders 0·66 ·42 0·68 Mood disorders 1·69 ·19 0·46 Other common mental disorders 3·46 ·06 0·29 Developmental disorders 6·31 ·012* 0·06 Personality disorders 5·82 ·016* 0·17 Social interventions 5·14 ·023* 0·14Funder NIHR 5·97 ·015* 4·45 MRC 0·18 ·67 0·72 Government 0·001 ·97 1·03 Charities/not for profit 1·64 ·20 3·03
  14. 14. Consultation Researcher 70 Initiated 60 Jointly/Patient- initiated/Patient controlled 50% 40 30 Mean 20 proportion in highest 10 category 0 NIHR MRC Government Charities/not International Funder for profit
  15. 15. Predictor Wald’s chi-square p odds ratio ResultsNon-follow up 5·94 ·015* 0·23Complexity 6·55 ·010* 0·83Involvement Researcher initiated 1·41 ·236 1·63 Jointly initiated or higher 4·58 ·032* 4·12
  16. 16. Interpretation: context Important to emphasise associations, not causality Therefore only provides directions for future research Need more variables to delineate this relationship
  17. 17. Why might the associationexist? Language in information sheets etc Least-burdensome design of research Intrinsic appeal of service user involvement
  18. 18. Limitations Unmeasured factors, e.g. researcher commitment Detail of categories of involvement Are researchers involving users as they set out to?
  19. 19. Future directions More research… MHRN adoption forms could help delineate the relationship by requesting more detail & being more specific about the information required