Search

This scoping review offers insight into researcher well-being when working with sensitive and traumatic topics in a qualitative research context. The study identified existing empirical research concerning researcher well-being and mental health. The databases included SSCI, ASSIA < IBISS, Scopus, Social Policy and Practice, PsycInfo, Social Science Database/Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest), and Open Grey. An international search was conducted, with no time constraints on publication dates to gather as wide a selection as possible. 55 papers met the criteria. We found that the terminology used within the papers was not consistent which necessitated grouping the (self-) reflection/reflexive practices researchers used and categorizing them under the umbrella term SRR practices. The research questions were: 1. Which disciplines or fields are conducting SRR practices on sensitive topics? 2. What SRR practices do researchers employ in the context of sensitive research? 3. What were the self-reported outcomes from using SRR practices as a tool of researchers working on sensitive research? A key finding of the scoping review is that many researchers who work on sensitive topics feel unprepared and receive little or no training or support for SRR practices. This poses particular challenges for early career researchers. We also identified that qualitative researchers have developed a range of SRR practices to manage the emotional impact of their sensitive research work. Many authors of the scoped papers stress the importance of peer-support as well as formal and informal debriefing meetings. Another key SRR practice discussed by many researchers is reflexive journaling. Our scoping review suggests that if it is combined with other activities, self-reflexive journaling can be an excellent way to acknowledge and assess the emotional impact of sensitive research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Doctors with a history of mental health or substance use challenges face barriers accessing treatment and are difficult to recruit for research. This makes understanding their experiences challenging, yet essential. Overcoming barriers to research participation among unwell doctors is critical to advancing their overall health and wellbeing. Methods: A qualitative interview study of 21 allegedly impaired doctors in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand who were subject to regulatory processes relating to their health. Based in an interpretative phenomenological paradigm, this paper examines participants' motivations for participation in this study and their reactions to participating. It highlights wider implications for sensitive research involving doctors and marginalised groups. Results: Participants were strongly motivated to participate in our research for their own benefit (desire to be heard, catharsis, and empowerment) and to benefit others (to change the system, and to avoid other doctors experiencing what they experienced). Careful planning and communication of unique legal risks fostered a trusting researcher-participant relationship. To assist other researchers undertaking sensitive qualitative research with vulnerable participants, we describe our research protocol, challenges, and successes in detail. Conclusions: Despite ethical concerns about research risk, researchers can and should pursue qualitative research into the experiences of under-represented groups, including allegedly impaired doctors. Without involving them in research that examines issues directly impacting on them, we may be inadvertently perpetuating the barriers and stigma that also hinder them from accessing treatment and support. This also deprives us of knowledge that can be used to improve doctors' health. This paper has broader relevance for anyone doing research with doctors, people in vulnerable positions, people disempowered by institutional or social systems, people who are stigmatised or shamed, and people who have experienced trauma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Internationally, lead agencies and consumer movements emphasise the need for high-level research participation in mental health. However, evidence suggests that people with lived experience tend to be recruited as subjects rather than as active agents in research, or are consulted in tokenistic ways. Although participatory research has the potential to rectify epistemic disparities, few studies have grappled with how to move from exclusion and tokenism to high-level research participation. This paper describes a qualitative co-evaluation of a co-produced model of research partnership, Raising the Bar, which involved deliberate establishment and facilitation of six participatory research teams, comprising 28 lived experience and 'conventional' mental health researchers. Findings indicate that the theoretical elements of the model set the bar high from the outset, supporting research teams to address inconsistencies in knowledge about participation. It also provided researchers with the competencies and resources to undertake participatory research in egalitarian team structures, and to negotiate new forms of non-traditional research outputs - thereby challenging whom research might be for and how it might be made accessible. Finally, the model shifted collective meanings about research, lending credibility to participatory practices, which came to be seen as essential for meeting the needs of affected communities. Nonetheless, systemic barriers to participatory research remain, and need to be recognised and acted upon to promote a culture that supports high-level research participation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Doctors with a history of mental health or substance use challenges face barriers accessing treatment and are difficult to recruit for research. This makes understanding their experiences challenging, yet essential. Overcoming barriers to research participation among unwell doctors is critical to advancing their overall health and wellbeing. Methods: A qualitative interview study of 21 allegedly impaired doctors in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand who were subject to regulatory processes relating to their health. Based in an interpretative phenomenological paradigm, this paper examines participants' motivations for participation in this study and their reactions to participating. It highlights wider implications for sensitive research involving doctors and marginalised groups. Results: Participants were strongly motivated to participate in our research for their own benefit (desire to be heard, catharsis, and empowerment) and to benefit others (to change the system, and to avoid other doctors experiencing what they experienced). Careful planning and communication of unique legal risks fostered a trusting researcher-participant relationship. To assist other researchers undertaking sensitive qualitative research with vulnerable participants, we describe our research protocol, challenges, and successes in detail. Conclusions: Despite ethical concerns about research risk, researchers can and should pursue qualitative research into the experiences of underrepresented groups, including allegedly impaired doctors. Without involving them in research that examines issues directly impacting on them, we may be inadvertently perpetuating the barriers and stigma that also hinder them from accessing treatment and support. This also deprives us of knowledge that can be used to improve doctors' health. This paper has broader relevance for anyone doing research with doctors, people in vulnerable positions, people disempowered by institutional or social systems, people who are stigmatised or shamed, and people who have experienced trauma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Internationally, lead agencies and consumer movements emphasise the need for high-level research participation in mental health. However, evidence suggests that people with lived experience tend to be recruited as subjects rather than as active agents in research, or are consulted in tokenistic ways. Although participatory research has the potential to rectify epistemic disparities, few studies have grappled with how to move from exclusion and tokenism to high-level research participation. This paper describes a qualitative co-evaluation of a co-produced model of research partnership, Raising the Bar, which involved deliberate establishment and facilitation of six participatory research teams, comprising 28 lived experience and 'conventional' mental health researchers. Findings indicate that the theoretical elements of the model set the bar high from the outset, supporting research teams to address inconsistencies in knowledge about participation. It also provided researchers with the competencies and resources to undertake participatory research in egalitarian team structures, and to negotiate new forms of non-traditional research outputs - thereby challenging whom research might be for and how it might be made accessible. Finally, the model shifted collective meanings about research, lending credibility to participatory practices, which came to be seen as essential for meeting the needs of affected communities. Nonetheless, systemic barriers to participatory research remain, and need to be recognised and acted upon to promote a culture that supports high-level research participation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents a description of a specific Indigenous research methodology, Kaupapa Māori Research (KMR), followed by a discussion of the potential contribution that KMR and other Indigenous frameworks make toward understanding and addressing widespread mental health inequities affecting the world's Indigenous peoples. The contribution of existing qualitative KMR to the fields of health and mental health in New Zealand is discussed, and innovative approaches employed within these studies will be outlined. This paper describes the utility of KMR methodology which informed the development of qualitative interviews and the adaptation of an analytic framework used to explore the impact of systems on the experiences of Māori (the Indigenous peoples of New Zealand) with bipolar disorder (BD). This paper adds to others published in this journal that describe the value, inherent innovation, and transformative potential of KMR methodologies to inform future qualitative research with Indigenous peoples and to enact systemic change. Transformation is achieved by privileging the voices of Māori describing their experiences of mental health systems; presenting their expert critique to those responsible for the design and delivery of mental health services; and ensuring equal weight is given to exploring the clinical, structural and organizational changes required to achieve health equity. It is proposed that this approach to research praxis is required to ensure that studies do not perpetuate institutional racism, which requires close adherence to Indigenous research priorities and partnership with Indigenous peoples in all steps of the research process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]