CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,247Mental Health and Patient InvolvementParticipatory Visual Research MethodsCommunity Health and Development

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

Moltu, Christian, Stefansen, Jon, Svisdahl, Marit, Veseth, Marius·2012·Disability and Rehabilitation
DOI 10.3109/09638288.2012.656792
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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

Crossref · 10.3109/09638288.2012.656792

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 34 references

2 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Malterud K, 2001, Lancet, 358, 483–488
  2. Finlay L, 2009, Relational-centered research for psychotherapists. Exploring meaning and experience
  3. 10.1002/9780470776094 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 401–500 of 1,002

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Moltu, C., Stefansen, J., Svisdahl, M., & Veseth, M.
Affiliations
  • Helse Førde (NO)
  • Akershus University Hospital (NO)
Corresponding author
Moltu, Christian
ORCID
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
DOI
10.3109/09638288.2012.656792
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