CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 145Mental Health and Patient InvolvementQualitative Research Methods and EthicsParticipatory Visual Research Methods

Developing the theoretical basis for service user/survivor-led research and equal involvement in research

Beresford, Peter·2005·Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale
DOI 10.1017/s1121189x0000186x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Summary Aims and methods — This article, written from a service user/survivor perspective, explores a hypothesis which seeks to offer a more systematic basis for the full and equal involvement of mental health service users/survivors in both the research process and research structures more generally. The hypothesis challenges traditional emphasis on positivist assumptions about the priority of values of ‘distance’, ‘neutrality’ and ‘objectivity’ (which it argues discriminate against service users and their experiential knowledge). It explores instead the idea that ‘the shorter the distance between direct experience and its interpretation, then the less likely resulting knowledge is to be inaccurate, unreliable and distorted. Results and conclusions — The proposal discusses ways in which such (objective and subjective) distance may be reduced, to improve the quality of research, to enable more equal involvement of service users and their direct experience and to make it possible for non-service user researchers to work alongside service users on more equal terms. Declaration of Interest: Peter Beresford is Professor of Social Policy at Brunei University and Chair of Shaping Our Lives, the national independent user controlled organisation which receives its core funding from the UK Department of Health. No financial support from pharmaceutical or other commercial companies has been received by the author over the last two years. Funding has been gained from governmental and non-governmenatal funding agencies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1121189x0000186x

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The quest to find a person (or a group) with characteristics as close as possible to a target study population was particularly challenging for research teams in public health studies, where the target population would not necessarily see themselves as having a health condition or need.

    “The quest to find a person (or a group) with characteristics as close as possible to a target study population 173 was particularly challenging for research teams in public health studies, where the target population would not necessarily see themselves as having a health condition or need.”

    From ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation – the RAPPORT study (2015) · cites this paper as [173]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Beresford, P.
Affiliations
Brunel University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Beresford, Peter
ORCID
Beresford, Peter
Venue
Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2005-03
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
4-9
ISSN
  • 1121-189X (ISSN-L)
  • 2038-1816
DOI
10.1017/s1121189x0000186x
OpenAlex
W2143588467
Cited by
145
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 9
FWCI
7.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 2415 d)
Locations
  • Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Participatory Visual Research Methods
Keywords
mental health service users, experiential knowledge, objectivity and neutrality, co-research, research quality
MeSH terms
Workforce, Attitude to Health, Community Participation, United Kingdom, Health Services Research, Humans, Life Change Events, Mental Health Services, Psychological Theory, Survivors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review