The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Negotiating the coresearcher mandate – service users’ experiences of doing collaborative research on mental health
Abstract
Purpose: Traditionally, the voices of service users have been silent in research into mental health issues. A Norwegian research network, however, recognizes the importance of involving service users as coresearchers and initiated a training program in research methodology and design intended to empower them as active participants in research projects. In this article, we explore how these coresearchers with a mental health service user background experience their participation in projects as well as in attending the training: What is it like being a service user coresearcher in collaborative studies on issues in mental health? How do coresearchers negotiate their roles and mandate? Method: We used focus groups as our data collection method, transcribed the group discussions verbatim, and analyzed the transcriptions using qualitative methodology. We then took the preliminary analyses back to the participants for discussion, auditing, and reanalysis. Results: We identified themes that represent important social processes around which the participants developed a consensual understanding: self-definition, constructive differentiation and negotiations. Conclusion: Our findings generate hypotheses on how participatory research into mental health issues can be fruitfully organized, in a way that empowers service users to active and constructive participation.Implications for RehabilitationParticipatory research on issues in mental health holds potential for empowering service users.Collaborating with service users in research puts weight on the lived experiences of mental distress and on the expertise of the first person perspective.Organizing a formal training and peer group context in this kind of research can contribute to the service user coresearchers process of defining their own mandate in the research process as well as to help them constructively differentiate themselves from the roles of other researchers.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“CBT models suggest that changes in cognition and behaviors as well as the ability to tolerate distress are the most important factors leading to therapeutic change [16-18].”
Citations
Cites
Hepburn, R. W., Heidegger, M., Macquarrie, J., & Robinson, E. (1927) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 12,201
Gadamer, H. G., Weinsheimer, J. C., & Marshall, D. G. (1960) · Cited by 9,238
Focus Groups as Qualitative Research
Morgan, D. (1997) · doi:10.4135/9781412984287 · Cited by 8,863
Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research
Billson, J. M. (1989) · Human Biology · Cited by 8,560
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research
(2010) · QMiP Bulletin · doi:10.53841/bpsqmip.2010.1.10.44 · Cited by 8,189
(2008) · Cited by 6,727
Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines
Malterud, K. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(01)05627-6 · Cited by 5,014
Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research
Graber, R., Alvesson, M. G., & Sköldberg, K. (2012) · QMiP Bulletin · doi:10.53841/bpsqmip.2012.1.14.101 · Cited by 3,457
Consensual qualitative research: An update.
Hill, C. E., Knox, S., Thompson, B. J., Williams, E. N., Hess, S. A., & Ladany, N. (2005) · Journal of Counseling Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.196 · Cited by 2,841
Laverty, S. M. (2003) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/160940690300200303 · Cited by 2,095
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Malterud K, 2001, Lancet, 358, 483–488
- Finlay L, 2009, Relational-centered research for psychotherapists. Exploring meaning and experience
- 10.1002/9780470776094 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,002 of 1,002
MAXWELL, T. K., BRANKA, L. A., Asher, N., COMMISSARIAT, P. V., & Laffel, L. M. (2024) · doi:10.2196/preprints.69243
Clemson, V., Grey, E., Barnett, J. C., Burfitt, E., & Gillison, F. (2024) · doi:10.2196/preprints.68951
Metadata
- Authors
- Moltu, C., Stefansen, J., Svisdahl, M., & Veseth, M.
- Affiliations
- Helse Førde (NO)
- Akershus University Hospital (NO)
- Corresponding author
- Moltu, Christian
- Venue
- Disability and Rehabilitation
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2012-04-10
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 19
- Pages
- 1608-1616
- ISSN
- 0963-8288 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5165
- OpenAlex
- W2134302857
- Cited by
- 1,247
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2026: 162 · 2025: 220 · 2024: 179 · 2023: 153 · 2022: 106 · 2021: 157 · 2020: 126 · 2019: 58 · 2018: 54 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 5.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Disability and Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Division of Materials Research
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Participatory Visual Research Methods
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Community Health and Development
- Keywords
- participatory research, mental health research, user involvement in research, role negotiation, mandate, empowerment, lived experience, peer groups, first-person perspective
- MeSH terms
- Mental Disorders, Community Participation, Cooperative Behavior, Health Personnel, Health Services Research, Humans, Mental Health, Mental Health Services, Norway, Patient Participation, Patients, Surveys and Questionnaires, Negotiating, Focus Groups, Qualitative Research
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