evaluating the involvement of experts by experience in the
Post on 27-Feb-2022
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Service Evaluation Project Experts by Experience Involvement
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2018 1
Evaluating the involvement ofExperts by Experience in the
Doctorate of Clinical PsychologyProgrammes
Emma Howarth
Commissioned by Dr. Tracey Smith
Clinical Psychologist and University of Leeds DClinPsy Clinical Tutor
Service Evaluation Project Experts by Experience Involvement
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2018 2
Abbreviations
BPS = British Psychological Society
DoH = Department of Health
DClinPsy = Doctorate in Clinical Psychology
DCP = Division of Clinical Psychology
EbE = Expert by Experience
GTiCP = Group of Trainers in Clinical Psychology
HCPC = Health Care Professions Council
NHS = National Health Service
PICT = Psychologist in Clinical Training
SUAC/s = Service user/s and carer/s
Service Evaluation Project Experts by Experience Involvement
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2018 3
List of Tables
Table Title Page
1 Involvement of EbE in the DClinPsy Programmes: MainCategories, Subcategories, and Examples
12
2 Barriers to EbE involvement in the DClinPsy Programmes:Category, Subcategories, and Examples
16
List of Figures
Figure Title Page
1 Programme EbE involvement response by
question area
10
Service Evaluation Project Experts by Experience Involvement
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2018 4
Table of contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 5
EbE involvement ............................................................................................................. 5
Involvement of EbE in health training ............................................................................ 5
Commissioning and Project Aims................................................................................... 7
Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 7
2. Method ........................................................................................................................ 7
Participants ...................................................................................................................... 7
Measure ........................................................................................................................... 8
Ethical Considerations..................................................................................................... 8
Procedure......................................................................................................................... 8
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................. 8
3. Results ......................................................................................................................... 9
Question 1. ...................................................................................................................... 9
Question 2. .................................................................................................................... 16
4. Discussion ................................................................................................................. 17
Overview ....................................................................................................................... 17
DClinPsy programme EbE involvement ....................................................................... 17
Barriers of involvement................................................................................................. 18
Is there a minimum standard of involvement DClinPsy programmes could achieve? . 18
A flexible model of involvement for DClinPsy programmes ....................................... 19
Limitations and Future Research................................................................................... 20
Dissemination of Findings ............................................................................................ 20
5. References................................................................................................................. 21
6. Appendices ............................................................................................................... 24
Appendix A: Questionnaire to DClinPsy Programmes................................................. 25
Appendix B: Participant Information Sheet (PIS)......................................................... 30
Appendix C: Covering email to DClinPsy Programmes............................................... 33
Appendix E: SEP Self-Appraisal ...................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix F: SEP Commissioner Appraisal ...................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Service Evaluation Project Experts by Experience Involvement
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2018 5
1. Introduction
EbE involvement
The involvement of first‐hand experiential knowledge in health care is widely
thought to have intrinsic value and acknowledges the importance of EbE lived experiences
and expertise (Ahuja & Williams, 2005). This value is reflected in the statements and
strategies of professional bodies (DCP, 2015, 2018; HCPC, 2017), health care providers
(NHS England, 2006), and charities for people experiencing mental health issues (Together
& NSUN, 2014). The importance of involvement is also recognised at a national level in
government strategy (DoH, 2011, 2014), which makes explicit references to the value of
EbE involvement and focus on partnership working to improve services and outcomes.
These standards help to strengthen the influence of EbE and give greater control over the
services received by all. However, the move towards bottom-up approaches to decision-
making and change does not come without potential shortcomings. EbE involvement in
mental health services can often be limited to tokenistic activity, making meaningful
change challenging (Paul & Holt, 2017). With large and powerful organisations like the
NHS, some may argue that EbE enter into a co-opting relationship rather than genuine
partnership working (Eriksson, 2018).
Involvement of EbE in health training
The involvement of EbE is also valued in health training. The HCPC regulate
sixteen different professions and their education provides, including practitioner
psychologists and issue standards of education and training guidance. The document states
that “Service users and carers must be involved in the programme”, and further clarifies
that involvement could include involving individuals or existing groups and networks via
voluntary organisations (HCPC, 2017). It also gives examples of areas EbE involvement
could happen, including admissions and selection, planning and developing the
programme, and teaching and learning activities. In addition, the BPS accreditation
standards of DClinPsy programmes highlight the importance of involving EbE through all
strands of training, stating that “service users and carers should inform and participate in
the delivery of the curriculum.” (BPS, 2014).
Research has found many benefits of EbE involvement for health professionals in
training, such as personal and professional development of trainee learning (Clarke &
Holttum, 2013; Khoo, McVicar & Brandon, 2004), improved communication skills and
increase empathy (Repper & Brezze, 2007), increase self-efficacy (McCusker et al, 2012),
increased enthusiasm and the provision of different perspectives on trainee thinking
(Harper et al, 2003), positive impact on clinical practice (Khoo, McVicar & Brandon,
2004), influence of trainee attitudes (Simpson & House, 2003).
In relation to clinical psychology training, a study by Dunning (2015) found
DClinPsy trainees reported EbE involvement increased engagement and skill development,
Service Evaluation Project Experts by Experience Involvement
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2018 6
and provided a valuable source of advice/feedback and diverse perspectives. Clarke &
Holttum (2013) also found positive aspects of EbE involvement perceived by DClinPsy
programme staff, such as opportunities to break down barriers and develop trainees
learning. However, they also found less positive aspects of involvement, as well as a
number of barriers, such as potential tokenistic involvement, and different agendas or
opinion between EbE and staff. Similar findings are seen in a study by Berry (2016) who
investigated EbE experience of DClinPsy involvement, finding positive experiences
including a sense of ‘having a voice’, as well as less positive experiences (e.g. awareness
of academic agenda) and personal and practical barriers to involvement.
These less positive factors and barriers to involvement highlight the need for regular
evaluation to monitor progress and improve standards. The DCP’s Good Practice
Guidelines (Sheldon & Harding, 2010) emphasise the importance of evaluating
involvement so that “work is not repeated and that projects are well planned, promote
inclusive practice, and achieve the aims determined by service users and carers at the
outset”. Programmes like INVOLVE (2012) support active public involvement in health
research with the aim of advancing current research process. Paul & Holt (2017) found
NHS researchers valued the perspective EbE brought to research, but identified frustration
with the tokenistic approaches rather than meaningful involvement work. While
researchers expressed motivation and enthusiasm for EbE involvement, the study suggests
EbE involvement guidelines may not be sufficient to change research practice. One model
used to measure and evaluate involvement is Arnstein’s (1969) Ladder of Participation.
Arnstein’s model illustrates eight levels of involvement which correspond to the extent of
power participants’ are seen to have in determining outcome - the higher up the ladder
equates to higher participant power and co-production. Arnstein highlights the importance
of the redistribution of power for authentic involvement, while also acknowledging that
disingenuous motivations for involvement can still reach the top levels of the ladder.
Although Arnstein’s research is almost fifty years old, this appears to remain a current issue
illustrated by Pollard (2018) when considering “whether [her own] lived experience is
being valued intrinsically (because of the substance of these contributions) or extrinsically
(because…it's simply just seen as 'good' to include these voices)”. The differing aims and
motivations of EbE, staff and trainees for involvement in training has been suggested as a
potential challenge or barrier that needs to be recognised to aid collaborative working (Lea
et al, 2016; Holttum et al, 2011).
This highlights the need for better understanding in the power of EbE involvement
for genuine and constructive change. In their 2009 paper, Boyle & Harris (2009) discuss
the need for co-production – an “equal and reciprocal relationship between professionals,
people using services, their families and their neighbours”. This relatively new approach
to thinking about public services, including DClinPsy training, encourages service design,
delivery and evaluation in equal partnership in order to become more effective, efficient,
and sustainable. One such example of co-production is the COMMUNE project. EbE and
Service Evaluation Project Experts by Experience Involvement
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2018 7
nursing academics developed and evaluated a co‐produced ‘mental health recovery’
module for undergraduate nursing students (Horgan et al, 2018). They found the module
enhanced understanding and emphasised the importance of self-reflection and
communication.
DClinPsy programmes have therefore begun to measure and evaluate their own
EbE involvement. Using Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation, Eames & Phillips (2017)
measured EbE involvement across the DClinPsy programmes to investigate involvement
and co-production over two time periods. They found that the levels of involvement varied
across the programmes, from low levels of power such as providing information (i.e.
sharing personal experiences in teaching sessions), to higher levels of power such as
influence in decision-making (i.e. separate EbE selection panel). While involvement levels
had increased in some strands of training, the lack of detail and depth in the data means it
was not always possible to determine how involvement was happening in each of the
programmes included.
Commissioning and Project Aims
The current project was commissioned by Dr Tracey Smith: clinical psychologist,
clinical tutor, lead for EbE involvement on the Leeds DClinPsy programme, and co-chair
of the GTiCP Involvement Sub-group. Following on from the GTiCP involvement survey
by Eames & Phillips (2017), the aim of the project was to evaluate the involvement of EbE
in the DClinPsy programmes in the UK. It was anticipated that the evaluation would update
and add further detail and depth to what and how programmes are co-ordinating EbE
involvement in addition to the barriers that prevent involvement. It was hoped the findings
would contribute toward a flexible model of involvement in Clinical Psychology
programmes in the UK.
Research Questions
1. What EbE involvement is there across the DClinPsy programmes? More
specifically how does EbE involvement happen?
2. What are the barriers to EbE involvement across the DClinPsy programmes?
2. Method
Participants
All thirty-three DClinPsy programmes across the UK were invited to take part in
the project (i.e. to complete a questionnaire). Programme staff, EbE and individuals who
identify as both were invited to complete the questionnaire. Fifteen programmes replied
giving a response rate of 45.5%. Individuals who completed the questionnaire included
twelve programme staff, eleven EbE and two individuals who identified as both.
Service Evaluation Project Experts by Experience Involvement
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2018 8
Measure
A questionnaire was developed based on the findings of the GTiCP Academic sub-
group Involvement Survey 2015, and refined in collaboration with the project’s
commissioner and Everybody’s Voice (see Appendix A). Areas of DClinPsy programmes
covered by the questionnaire include: overall programme, selection process, clinical,
research and academic strands, other involvement, and barriers to involvement. The
questionnaire consisted of forced-choice questions and free text sections. The force-choice
questions asked for a ‘yes/no’ response about involvement in the different areas of the
DClinPsy programmes. The free text sections allowed participants to detail what and how
EbE involvement happens, or does not happen, on their programme. The questionnaire was
designed to be clear and concise in the hope of maximising the response rate.
Ethical Considerations
This project was approved by the University of Leeds School of Medicine Research
Ethics Committee DClinPsy sub-REC (DClinREC project number 17-010). Participants
were provided with a Participant Information Sheet (PIS) outlining the purpose of the
project, what would happen if they chose to take part, possible risks and benefits, issues of
confidentiality and right to withdraw (see Appendix B). All participants were given the
opportunity to ask questions prior to taking part.
Procedure
All DClinPsy programmes across the UK were invited to take part in the project
via email by Leeds programme administration team (see Appendix C). The PIS and
questionnaire were attached to the email. Informed consent was assumed when participants
returned the completed questionnaire via email. All programmes were prompted to return
questionnaires one week before the deadline via email (see Appendix D). The project was
also discussed on the GTiCP Involvement group email list.
Data Analysis
The quantitative data collected was analysed using descriptive statistics, while the
qualitative data was analysed using qualitative content analysis. Qualitative content
analysis is “a method for systematically describing the meaning of qualitative data”
(Schreier, 2014, pp. 170). The questionnaire responses were analysed using a combination
of concept-driven and data-driven approaches of qualitative content analysis (Schreier,
2014, pp. 176). The aim of this project was to identify EbE involvement and this focus was
used to generate categories and subcategories in a concept-driven way. Further categories
and subcategories were then generated in a data-driven way using a ‘subsumption’
approach (Schreier, 2014, pp. 174-180) so that all data was accounted for.
In terms of the current SEP, this approach was felt to be the most suitable for the
volume of data as “qualitative content analysis reduces data, it is systematic, and it is
Service Evaluation Project Experts by Experience Involvement
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2018 9
flexible.” (Schreier, 2014). While the detail and depth of the responses could potentially be
lost when the data is reduced, the approach allows a “sense of how different [responses]
compare and relate to each other.” (Schreier, 2014). The use of subcategory examples
from the raw data will illustrate some of the lost detail and depth. Alternative approaches
were considered, such as thematic analysis, however it did not seem appropriate as we
wanted to use prior research to guide our coding frame.
The coding frame was initially structured in a concept-driven way, using the
different stands of training covered by the questionnaire to create categories and the
question topics to generate subcategories. The responses for each question were read
through fully to gain a sense of the data as a whole. The responses were then read again
and any words, phrases, sentences or whole response that captured involvement were
highlighted and a note of the type of involvement was made in the margin. A further data-
driven category and subcategories began to emerge from the responses. Once coding for
all responses had reached saturation, the concept- and data-driven concepts were
amalgamated to develop the final coding frame. The final subcategories were then
generated, with very similar subcategories being collapsed. Names were then developed
for each of the final subcategories and the responses for each question were read though
for a final time in order to check that all coding was consistent with the subcategory names.
Creditability Checks
Credibility checks were used in an attempt to improve the quality of the findings
and reduce potential bias, following guidelines for publication of qualitative research
(Elliott, Fischer & Rennie, 1999). The development of the coding frame was discussed with
my academic tutor and with the project’s commissioner to enhance the reliability of
findings. Further, data examples are included in the results section to support the generated
subcategories.
3. Results
Q1. What EbE involvement is there across the DClinPsy programmes? Morespecifically how does EbE involvement happen?
The questionnaire asked participants to respond to a forced choice ‘yes/no’ question
regarding involvement in a specific aspect or area of the programme. The results identified
a variation in involvement over the different questions from the programmes (n=15) that
responded, ranging from one to fifteen ‘yes’ responses.
Service Evaluation Project Experts by Experience Involvement
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2018 10
Figure 1: Programme EbE involvement response by question area
Six categories were identified from the questionnaires in regards to what EbE
involvement is there across the DClinPsy programmes, these included: Involvement in
overall programme, Involvement in selection process, Involvement in clinical strand,
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Informal assessment
Formal assessment
Academic developments
Formal assessment design
Programme guidelines
Developing teaching resources
Co-/running or contributing to teaching
Other teaching
Neurological teaching
Health teaching
Psychosis teaching
Forensic teaching
Learning/Intellectual Disabilities…
Older Adult teaching
Child teaching
Adult teaching
Research co-supervision
Research development & feedback
Research consultation
Research presentation feedback
Placement involvement
Final cohort decisions
Selection process
Shortlisting
Other sub-committee
Academtic sub-committee
Ethics sub-committee
Research sub-committee
Clinical sub-committee
Selection sub-committee
Involvement lead/co-ordinator
Expert by Experience Reference group
Number of "Yes" responses
Invo
lve
me
nt
qu
est
ion
are
a
Involvement of Experts by Experience (EbE) in theDClin Programmes
Programmes were asked if they have EbE involved in thefollowing areas:
Service Evaluation Project Experts by Experience Involvement
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2018 11
Involvement in research strand, Involvement in academic strand, and Other involvement.
A total of twenty-six subcategories emerged from these six categories in regards to how
EbE involvement is happening. A category outside of the research question was also
identified: Future involvement. The categories and subcategories are presented in Table 1
with examples from the raw data.
Service Evaluation Project Experts by Experience Involvement
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2018 12
Table 1: Involvement of EbE in the DClinPsy Programmes: Main Categories, Subcategories, and Examples
Service Evaluation Project Experts by Experience Involvement
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2018 13
Service Evaluation Project Experts by Experience Involvement
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2018 14
Service Evaluation Project Experts by Experience Involvement
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2018 15
Service Evaluation Project Experts by Experience Involvement
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2018 16
Q2. What are the barriers to EbE involvement across the DClinPsy programmes?Eight subcategories were identified in regards to the barriers to involvement across the DClinPsy programmes. The subcategories
are presented in Table 2 with examples from the raw data.
Table 2: Barriers to EbE involvement in the DClinPsy Programmes: Category, Subcategories, and Examples
Service Evaluation Project Experts by Experience Involvement
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2018 17
4. Discussion
OverviewThe current SEP aimed to (1) obtain an overview of what EbE involvement there is
across the DClinPsy programmes, (2) identify how involvement happens, and (3) what
barriers prevent involvement. It was hoped that the evaluation would update and add further
detail and depth to the previous research within the area, contributing toward a flexible
model of involvement in DClinPsy programmes in the UK.
DClinPsy programme EbE involvementThe findings suggest there is a lot of meaningful involvement that has been
integrated into training in various ways, potentially indicating an increase from last year
(Eames & Phillips, 2017), with future ideas and plans for involvement in the pipeline for
many programmes. However, there is notable variation in the level of power and
responsibility given to EbE within the involvement reported (e.g. providing feedback and
advice to influencing decision making), and discrepancies in the amount of involvement
between the different areas of training (e.g. more involvement in academic strand than
clinical strand). All programmes reported barriers to involvement which can prevent
involvement or mean it is not as widespread as they would like, which varied from barriers
faced by EbE, by programmes, and bigger systemic barriers.
While the overall trend of the results are consistent with previous research (Eames
& Phillips, 2017; Briggs et al, 2017; Berry, 2016; Dunning, 2015; Holttum et al, 2011), the
many subcategories of involvement identified offer a more in-depth insight into how
involvement is happening within DClinPsy programmes, braking down the different areas
of training to gain further understanding. For example, there is a large amount of EbE
involvement in teaching consisting of sharing experiential knowledge in all teaching block
areas apart from forensic teaching, and in co-/running or contributing to sessions. While
previous research found EbE involvement within the research strand of training (Eames &
Phillips, 2017), the current findings show the majority of programmes have involvement
in research consultation, development and feedback, and around half have involvement in
presentation feedback and co-supervising research projects.
Interesting, the findings also identify involvement outside of the usual training
strands focused on (selection, clinical, research, academic), such as programme staff
interviews, one-to-one EbE trainee mentoring or advising schemes, involvement in various
programme stakeholder events. This involvement could be viewed as a move towards
genuine partnership working and a more co-production orientated culture (Boyle & Harris,
2008) within the profession, going beyond what is required from HCPC (2017) and BPS
(2014) standards, and beginning to move the balance of power and influence from
professionals.
Service Evaluation Project Experts by Experience Involvement
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2018 18
Barriers of involvementThe findings of the SEP highlighted a number of barriers faced by EbE and
DClinPsy programmes that prevent involvement or make involvement challenging. A
common barrier that was mentioned by the majority of the programmes was a sense of
limited resources from both EbE (e.g. availability, financial strains) and programmes (e.g.
funding, time). It could be argued these challenges are a reflection of a larger, systemic
difficulty experienced by the NHS and other publicly funded services (Boyle & Harris,
2009). However involvement on some programmes appear to be less impacted by this
barrier, and there is evidence that innovative, successful examples of co-production “have
arisen in places where problems seem most intractable” (Boyle & Harris, 2009). Therefore
better understanding what these programmes are doing may allow others to learn and
replicate.
Other barriers such as lack of representation, not having enough EbE to facilitate
involvement and difficulties recruiting individuals into programme reference groups are
similar findings in previous SEPs (Berry, 2016; Dunning, 2015), with issues of diversity
also being raised as a wider issue for the profession as a whole (Turpin & Coleman, 2010).
Is there a minimum standard of involvement DClinPsy programmes could achieve?Given HCPC guidance and BPS standards specify DClinPsy programmes have to
have EbE involvement, could a minimum standard of involvement be developed, guided
by the findings of this SEP and previous research, which could be achieved by all
programmes?
Findings indicate a potential minimum standard of involvement could include:
Links made with a EbE reference group or network (affiliated or external to the
programme)
An allocated involvement lead or co-ordinator for the programme (EbE or staff)
Standing invitation to programme meetings/sub-/committee meetings
Selection process – sat on interview panels/assessor on assessments days, and
involved in final cohort discussions/meetings
Clinical – feedback sought from clients by trainees on placement with
contributions to placement assessment/evaluation
Recommendation:
Programmes to consider how involvement and co-production could beintroduced more creatively and flexibly.
Programmes to further explore how to recruit individuals who appear to beunderrepresented.
Programmes to consider how to make involvement as convenient, inclusiveand accessible for EbE
Service Evaluation Project Experts by Experience Involvement
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2018 19
Research – programmes actively encourage consultation/development
opportunities for EbE, trainees, and supervisors/tutors to discuss projects
Teaching – combining experiential knowledge with direct contributions to
teaching sessions
Academic – programmes actively consult with EbE around academic
developments, such as changes made to teaching modules, and informal
assessments, such as clinical skill observations and presentations.
The DCP (2018) EbE position statement and strategy includes a summary of ‘key
principles for practical involvement’ to support involvement.
A flexible model of involvement for DClinPsy programmesIf a minimum standard of involvement for all DClinPsy programmes was
established, programmes could begin to work towards a flexible model of involvement.
Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of participation is a good model to measure and evaluate
involvement, however as its approach to involvement assumes all activity should be at top
of ladder it is not very flexible for programmes given the systems they work within and
takes away EbE choice for level of involvement they would like or feel able to commit to.
A flexible model of involvement could actively encourage meaningful involvement
as high up the ladder of participation as possible while acknowledging the barriers to
involvement experienced by EbE, programmes and systemically. The flexible model would
consider (a) where and when can involvement take place, (b) what the aim of the task is,
and (c) what level of involvement does the task or activity need to be at. In a similar way
that the BPS recognises DClinPsy programmes will meet accreditation standards in
different ways and encourages a flexible approach in the methods used to meet them (BPS,
2014), a flexible model of involvement could allow EbE and programmes to consider
where and when involvement could take place.
Recommendation:
A future SEP or research project may wish to develop the suggested minimum
standard of involvement, working with EbE reference groups and DClinPsy
programmes to co-produce a minimum achievable standard.
Recommendation:
A future SEP or research project may wish to develop a flexible model of
involvement, co-produced with EbE reference groups and DClinPsy
programmes.
Service Evaluation Project Experts by Experience Involvement
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2018 20
Limitations and Future ResearchThere are limitations in relation to the project which should be considered when
evaluating the findings. For example, methodological constraints may have had an impacton the findings as the questionnaire (a) did not include the EbE definition used by the SEPcommissioner, and (b) was completed independently. As such, varied definitions of who isperceived as EbE (e.g. individuals affiliated with DClinPsy programmes and clients seenby trainees on placement) and different interpretations of the questions may haveinfluenced how participants responded and captured the involvement on their programme.These limitations may have been why there was not as much detail and depth to the findingsas expected.
Furthermore, the representativeness of the current sample should also beconsidered. The programmes that took part represent less than half of all DClinPsyprogrammes (45.5%) and may capture those most proactive and motivated aboutinvolvement, therefore the findings may not be representative of DClinPsy programmes asa whole.
Dissemination of FindingsThe above findings have been shared with the project’s commissioners. The findings will alsobe shared with the GTiCP Involvement sub-group email list and at the GTiCP conference.
Recommendation:
A future SEP may wish to develop the questionnaire to include an EbEdefinition and the use of examples within questions to aid clarity and mutualunderstanding when responding.
Service Evaluation Project Experts by Experience Involvement
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2018 21
5. References
Ahuja, A. S., & Williams, R. (2005). Involving patients and their carers in educating and
training practitioners. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 18, 374-380.
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). 'A Ladder Of Citizen Participation'. Journal of the American
Planning Association, 35: 4, 216-224.
Berry, C. (2016). Service Evaluation Project: Evaluating Service User and Carer
Experience of Involvement in the Doctorate in Clinical Psychology Programme at
the University of Leeds. Leeds, UK: University of Leeds.
Boyle, D. & Harris, M. (2009). The Challenge of Co-production. NESTA, London.
Briggs, J., O'Key, V., Tickle, A. & Rennoldson, M. (2017). Involvement in UK DClinPsy
programmes: Attitudes and activity. Clinical Psychology Forum, 291, 25-31.
British Psychological Society. (2014). Standards for doctoral programmes in clinical
psychology. Leicester, UK: British Psychological Society.
Clarke, S. P. & Holttum, S. (2013). Staff perspectives of service user involvement on twoclinical psychology training courses. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 12(1), 32-43. doi:10.2304/plat.2013.12.1.32
Department of Health. (2011). No health without mental health; A cross- governmentmental health outcomes strategy for people of all ages. London, UK: Departmentof Health.
Department of Health. (2014). Five Year Forward View. London, UK: Department of
Health.
Division of Clinical Psychology. (2018). Experts by Experience Position Statement and
Strategy 2018-2019. Leicester, UK: The British Psychological Society.
Division of Clinical Psychology. (2015). Inclusivity Strategy 2016-2018. Leicester, UK:
The British Psychological Society.
Dunning, G. (2015). Service evaluation project: Evaluating Service User and CarerInvolvement in the Doctorate of Clinical Psychology Programme at the Universityof Leeds. Leeds, UK: University of Leeds.
Service Evaluation Project Experts by Experience Involvement
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2018 22
Eames, C. & Phillips, P. (2017). Involvement Survey. GTiCP Conference Presentation.
Elliott, R., Fischer, C. T., & Rennie, D. L. (1999). Evolving guidelines for the publicationof qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal ofClinical Psychology, 38, 215-229.
Eriksson, E. (2018). Incorporation and Individualization of Collective Voices: PublicService User Involvement and the User Movement’s Mobilization for Change.Voluntas, 29, 832–843.
Group of Trainers in Clinical Psychology (GTiCP) Academic sub-group. (2015).Involvement Survey. British Psychological Society, UK.
Harper, D., Goodbody, L., & Steen, L. (2003). Involving users of services in clinicalpsychology training. Clinical Psychology Forum, 21, 14-19.
Health and Care Professions Council. (2017). Your duties as education provider: Standardsof education and training guidance. London, UK: Health and Care ProfessionsCouncil.
Holttum, S., Lea, L., Morris, D., Riley, L., & Byrne, D. (2011). Now I have a voice: serviceuser and carer involvement in clinical psychology training. Mental Health andSocial Inclusion, 15(4), 190-197.
Horgan, A., Manning , F., Bocking, J., Happell, B., Lahti, M., Doody, R., Griffin,M., Bradley, S., Russell, S., Bjornsson, E., O'Donovan, M., MacGabhann, L.,Savage, E., Pulli, J., Goodwin, J., Jan van der Vaart, K., O'Sullivan, H., Dorrity, C.,Ellila, H., Allon, J., Hals, E., Sitvast, J., Granerud, A. & Biering, P. (2018). ‘To betreated as a human': Using co‐production to explore experts by experience involvement in mental health nursing education ‐ The COMMUNE project. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 27, 1282–1291.
Involve (2012). INVOLVE Strategy 2012–2015. [online] Accessed on 08.11.18. Retrievedfrom http://www.invo.org.uk/about-involve/involve-organisation-publications/
Khoo, R., McVicar, A., & Brandon, D. (2004). Service user involvement in postgraduatemental health education. Does it benefit practice? Journal of Mental Health, 13,481-492.
Lea, L., Holttum, S., Cooke, A., & Riley, L. (2016). Aims for service user involvement inmental health training: Staying human. The Journal of Mental Health Training,11(4), 208-219. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMHTEP-01-2016-0008
McCusker, P., MacIntyre, G., Stewart, A., & Jackson, J. (2012). Evaluating theeffectiveness of service user and carer involvement in post qualifying mental health
Service Evaluation Project Experts by Experience Involvement
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2018 23
social work education in Scotland: Challenges and opportunities. The Journal ofMental Health Training, Education and Practice, 7(3), 143-153.
NHS England. (2006). Liaison and Diversion Manager and Practitioner Resources:
Service User Involvement. https://www.england.nhs.uk/commissioning/wp-
content/uploads/sites/12/2015/10/ohc-paper-06.pdf
NSUN. (2018). The National Survivor User Network. https://www.nsun.org.uk/
Paul, C. & Holt, J. (2017). Involving the public in mental health and learning disability
research: Can we, should we, do we? Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health
Nursing, 24, 570–579.
Pollard, A. (2018). Experts by experience are invaluable in mental health: but how exactly?
Mental Health Foundation. https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/blog/experts-
experience-are-invaluable-mental-health-how-exactly-0
Repper, J., & Breeze, J. (2007). User and carer involvement in the training and educationof health professionals: A review of the literature. International Journal of NursingStudies, 44(3), 511-519. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.05.013
Schreier, M. (2014) Qualitative Content Analysis. In U. Flick (Eds.), The SAGE handbookof qualitative data analysis (pp. 170-183). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Sheldon, K., & Harding, E. (2010). Good practice guidelines to support the involvement ofservice users and carers in clinical psychology services. Leicester, UK: Division ofClinical Psychology.
Simpson, E. L., & House, A. O. (2003). User and carer involvement in mental healthservices: From rhetoric to science. British Journal of Psychiatry, 183, 89-91.
Together & NSUN. Service User Involvement in the delivery of mental health services.May 2014. http://www.together-uk.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2014/06/Service-User-Involvement-briefing.pdf
Service Evaluation Project Experts by Experience Involvement
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2018 24
6. Appendices
Appendix A: Questionnaire to DClinPsy Programmes
Appendix B: Participant Information Sheet (PIS)
Appendix C: Covering email to DClinPsy Programmes
Appendix D: Reminder email to DClinPsy Programmes
Service Evaluation Project Experts by Experience Involvement
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2018 25
Appendix A: Questionnaire to DClinPsy Programmes
Evaluating the involvement of Experts by Experience in the
Doctorate of Clinical Psychology Programmes
Please indicate the programme you represent:
…………………………………………
The following completed the questionnaire:
Person 1: Programme staff Expert by Experience Identify as both
Person 2: Programme staff Expert by Experience Identify as both
Part 1: Overall programmeQuestions Yes / No If yes, please describe what and
how involvement happens.Q1. Does your programmeconsult with an Experts byExperience referencegroup?
Q2. Does your programmehave a member of staffwho leads/co-ordinatesExperts by Experienceinvolvement?Q3. Do Experts byExperience attend yourprogramme sub-committees?
SelectionClinicalResearchEthicsAcademicOther(pleasestate)
Part 2: Selection processQuestions Yes /
NoIf yes, please describe what and how
involvement happens.
Q4. Does your programmehave Experts by Experienceinvolved in shortlisting?
Service Evaluation Project Experts by Experience Involvement
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2018 26
Q5. Does your programmehave Experts by Experienceinvolved in your selectionassessment/interview day?
Q6. Does your programmehave Experts by Experienceinvolved in the final cohortdecisions? E.g. meetings
Part 3: Clinical strandQuestions Yes /
NoIf yes, please describe what and how
involvement happens.Q7. Does your programmehave Experts by Experienceinvolved in providing traineeperformance feedback orevaluation on placement?
Part 4: Research strandQuestions Yes /
NoIf yes, please describe what and how
involvement happens.
PanelsQ8. Does your programmehave Experts by Experienceinvolved in providingresearch presentationfeedback?ProjectsQ9. Does your programmehave Experts by Experienceconsultation available totrainees regarding researchprojects?Q10. Does your programmehave Experts by Experienceinvolved in research projectdevelopment and/orfeedback? E.g. meetings,panelsSupervision
Service Evaluation Project Experts by Experience Involvement
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2018 27
Q11. Does your programmehave or offer Experts byExperience in research co-supervisory roles?
Part 5: Academic strandQuestions Yes / No /
Don’t knowIf yes, please describe what and
how involvement happens.TeachingQ12. Does yourprogramme have Expertsby Experience involved inteaching sessions aroundsharing/discussingexperience andperspectives of, forexample: psychologicalproblems, mental healthdiagnosis, physical healthdiagnosis, services,therapy?
Adult
Child
Older adult
Learningdisability
Forensic
Psychosis
Health
Neurological
Other(pleasestate)
Q13. Does yourprogramme have Expertsby Experience in co-/running or contributing toteaching sessions? E.g.research, clinical skillsbuilding, reflective personaland professionaldevelopmentQ14. Does yourprogramme have Expertsby Experience involved indeveloping teachingresources available totrainees? E.g. DVDs,online videos
Service Evaluation Project Experts by Experience Involvement
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2018 28
Development
Q15. Does yourprogramme have Expertsby Experience involvementin programme guidelines?E.g. involvement of Expertsby Experience in teachingQ16. Does yourprogramme of Experts byExperience involved informal assessment design?E.g. essay titles, examquestionsQ17. Does yourprogramme have Expertsby Experience reviewingand/or advising onacademic developments?E.g. change in teaching,new assessmentsAssessmentQ18. Does yourprogramme have Expertsby Experience involvementin trainee formalassessment and feedback?E.g. exams, essaysQ19. Does yourprogramme have Expertsby Experience in providinginformal assessment andfeedback? E.g. clinicalskills observations,presentations
Part 6. OtherPlease detail any other Experts by Experience involvement in your programme that isnot captured in the questions.E.g. training days, conferences, events, interview panels for new course staff, programmeEbE co-ordinator post
Service Evaluation Project Experts by Experience Involvement
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2018 29
Are there reasons why Experts by Experience involvement is difficult or not aswidespread you would like?
Thank you for your time.
Service Evaluation Project Experts by Experience Involvement
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2018 30
Appendix B: Participant Information Sheet (PIS)
Evaluating the involvement of Experts by Experience in the Doctorate
of Clinical Psychology Programmes: Participation Information Sheet
We are inviting you to take part in a survey of Doctorate of Clinical Psychology
programmes in order to evaluate the current Experts by Experience (EbE)
involvement which will hopefully contribute towards a flexible model of
involvement in Clinical Psychology programmes in the UK. We are hoping to collect
information regarding EbE involvement across the different stands of training (i.e.
academic, clinical, research, and selection) from those involved in co-ordinating
involvement work on your programme. The ethical approval for this service
evaluation project has been sought from the School of Medicine Research Ethics
Committee DClin Psych sub-REC (DClinREC project number 17-010).
What will I be asked to do?
Complete one questionnaire per programme, ideally completed jointly by a
member of academic staff and EbE involved in co-ordinating involvement.
The questionnaire looks at EbE involvement across four strands of the
Doctorate of Clinical Psychology programme: academic, clinical, research,
and selection.
We would be grateful if you could include as much detailed information as
possible.
Returning Questionnaires
By returning the questionnaire you will be consenting to take part in the
above project.
Questionnaires can be returned by emailing them to
meddclin@leeds.ac.uk. If you would prefer a paper version of the
questionnaire please request one from meddclin@leeds.ac.uk.
Please return any questionnaires as soon as possible and by 21st June
2018 at the latest.
Do I have to take part?
No. It is your choice as to whether you take part and you do not have to
do so.
Please do not hesitate to contact me using the details below if you have
any questions before taking part.
Service Evaluation Project Experts by Experience Involvement
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2018 31
What will happen with the information?
Returned questionnaires will stored securely on University of Leeds
servers.
The researcher and commissioner of the project (see below) will have
access to the questionnaires to check the quality of information gathered.
A summary of information gathered which will be included in a written
report and the findings from the project will be disseminated (e.g. GTiCP
conferences, poster presentations, and academic papers).
No individual programme will be readily identifiable in any write up or
dissemination of the findings.
Questionnaires will be archived for a period of 3 years following the
completion of the project.
What are the benefits of taking part?
We hope that the valuable findings of this survey will contribute towards a
flexible model of involvement in clinical psychology programmes in the UK.
However, the data you provide will be useful in helping us identify the
current level of EbE involvement across Doctorate of Clinical Psychology
programmes.
What risks are involved in taking part?
It is anticipated that there are no risks from taking part.
However, taking part will require a brief time commitment on your part.
If anything difficult does come up for you while completing the
questionnaire, you can contact me using the details below.
Can I withdraw from the project?
Withdrawal from the project is possible within the first week of returning
the questionnaire, and the questionnaire will be deleted. Withdrawal will
not be possible after this point.
Comments and concerns
If you have any comments or concerns about this project you can contact
the commissioner in the first instance using the details below.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Researcher: 201084884 (Psychologist in Clinical Training, umeh@leeds.ac.uk)
Service Evaluation Project Experts by Experience Involvement
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2018 32
The University of Leeds
Leeds Institute of Health Sciences
Doctorate in Clinical Psychology
Level 10 Worsley Building
Clarendon Way
Leeds
LS2 9NL
Commissioner: Dr Tracey Smith (Clinical Tutor, T.E.Smith@leeds.ac.uk)
The University of Leeds
Leeds Institute of Health Sciences
Doctorate in Clinical Psychology
Level 10 Worsley Building
Clarendon Way
Leeds
LS2 9NL
Service Evaluation Project Experts by Experience Involvement
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2018 33
Appendix C: Covering email to DClinPsy Programmes
Evaluating the involvement of Experts by Experience in the Doctorate
of Clinical Psychology Programmes:
Initial Email to Doctorate of Clinical Psychology Programmes
Dear colleagues,
The Involvement of Experts by Experience (EbE) in Clinical Psychology Training is
widely thought to have intrinsic value and acknowledges the importance of EbE
lived experiences and expertise. We would like to capture the current EbE
involvement in the Doctorate of Clinical Psychology programmes. The project is
commissioned by Tracey Smith, Co-Chair of the Group of Trainers in Clinical
Psychology (GTiCP) Involvement Sub-group with Simon Mudie. The Involvement
Sub-group feel this is an important piece of work which we hope will contribute
towards a flexible model of involvement in Clinical Psychology programmes in the
UK. A previous brief survey carried out by the GTiCP Academic sub-group in 2015
collected important involvement data. This survey hopes to update and add further
detail and depth to what specific involvement is happening now and how
programmes are co-ordinating this.
If this sounds like something that your programme would like to be involved in,
please read through the participant information sheet attached. If your programme
would like to take part in this project, we would be grateful if those involved in co-
ordinating involvement, ideally both academic staff and EbE, would please jointly
complete the attached questionnaire for your programme. Please return the
questionnaire to meddclin@leeds.ac.uk as soon as possible and by 18th June
2018 at the latest.
The ethical approval for this service evaluation project has been sought from the
School of Medicine Research Ethics Committee DClin Psych sub-REC (DClinREC
project number 17-010).
Thank you for your time.
Emma HowarthPsychologist in Clinical TrainingLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Leeds
Service Evaluation Project Experts by Experience Involvement
Prepared on the Leeds D.Clin.Psychol. Programme, 2018 34
Appendix D: Reminder email to DClinPsy Programmes
Evaluating the involvement of Experts by Experience in the Doctorate
of Clinical Psychology Programmes:
Reminder Email to Doctorate of Clinical Psychology Programmes
Dear colleagues,
We previously emailed you about a survey of Doctorate of Clinical Psychology
programmes regarding current Expert by Experience (EbE) involvement. The
project is commissioned by Tracey Smith, Co-Chair of the Group of Trainers in
Clinical Psychology (GTiCP) Involvement Sub-group with Simon Mudie.
If your programme would like to be involved in the survey, please read through
the participant information sheet attached. If your programme would like to take
part in this project, we would be grateful if those involved in co-ordinating
involvement, ideally both academic staff and EbE, would please jointly complete
the attached questionnaire for your programme. Please return the questionnaire
to meddclin@leeds.ac.uk as soon as possible and by 21st June 2018 at the
latest.
The ethical approval for this service evaluation project has been sought from the
School of Medicine Research Ethics Committee DClin Psych sub-REC (DClinREC
project number 17-010).
Thank you for your time.
Emma HowarthPsychologist in Clinical TrainingLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Leeds
top related