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]

Intersecting gender and other social inequalities are pertinent to women's mental health across the life course. Gendered violence and other forms of gender inequality in particular play a key role in the higher burden of psychological distress carried by young women. However, the context of gendered violence is often minimised or overlooked entirely when young women seek help or advice around mental health concerns. This is especially the case for young women under the age of 30 years. This paper reports on a research study exploring how young women in Australia understand their mental health, and the scope for new approaches to support that better address their needs. A qualitative survey undertaken with 52 Australian young women was used to explore the nature of their mental health experiences, sought to learn about the strategies they used when experiencing poor mental health and the scope for mental health peer support as an alternative approach to intervention. Responses from a diverse group of young women demonstrated that they understood the role that gendered violence and gender inequality played in their mental health. Findings point to the risk of slippage between young women's understandings of their lived experience and those of traditional service providers, demonstrating the risks associated with minimising or ignoring of the gendered nature of young women's mental health problems. [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]

In this research note, we present a critical moment we had as a research team in our work preparing qualitative data for its analysis in which an unanticipated social justice issue was triggered. The moment was related to determining the best ways to anonymize the information—in particular, how to replace what were perceived as "male" and "female" gendered names, family relationships, and roles with the labels of "she/her/mother/daughter" or "he/his/father/son". The paper begins with a review of the main "do's and don'ts" of data preparation, followed by our reflections of the social justice issue. Through our differently positioned reflections, we complicate the task of data preparation by revealing the ways in which cis-dominance is upheld by cis-normativity, cis-genderism, and heteronormativity. We end with recommendations for practices that uphold the values and goals of social justice by resisting cis-dominance and challenging the erasures of peoples with fluid genders and identities. [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]

This paper provides insights from experiences in data gathering and recruitment from two research projects on disability/mental health in Ghana. The focus of the study explores stigma amongst individuals diagnosed with mental illness and their caregivers. The study investigates the positioning of the researcher in a superior light by participants which often wrests power from those who should be considered the true experts of their own circumstances. Inequality in the interview process thus carried the risk of impacting the quality of the data, as some participants did not consider themselves as 'experts' of their condition. The paper explores strategies for addressing these challenges of hierarchy and inequality in the research process in the Global South. Based on the study, we report on our experiences as follows: (1) ensuring that participants are empowered to engage with researchers; and (2) training local researchers to engage in culturally sensitive research processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper points out some problematic aspects of qualitative research based on interviews and uses examples from mental health. The narrative approach is explored while inquiring if the reality of life here is forced into the formula of a chronological story. The hermeneutic approach, in general, is also examined, and we ask if the reality of life in this scenario becomes caught up in a web of interpretations. Inspired by ideas from Bakhtin and phenomenology, we argue for interview-based research that stays with unresolvedness and constantly question the web of interpretations and narratives that determine our experiences. This also chimes with certain dialogical practices in mental health in which tolerance of uncertainty is the guiding principle. Concludingly, we suggest that interview-based research could be a practice of 'un-resolving' in which researchers, together with the participants, look for cracks, contradictions, and complexities to prevent the qualitative fallacies of well-organized meanings and well-composed stories. [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]

In Part 1 of this UK-based study, across four timepoints between March and October 2020, autistic children and young people showed higher levels of parent-reported depression and anxiety symptoms than those with other special educational needs and disabilities. In this study, we draw on qualitative data from 478 parents/carers of autistic pupils and those with other special educational needs and disabilities to conduct a longitudinal qualitative content analysis examining stability and change in the mental health of these young people, and their parents/carers, during the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Worry and psychological distress were dominant categories at all timepoints and we noted that, in line with quantitative findings, worry in autistic pupils stayed stable over time but decreased for those with other special educational needs and disabilities. The third dominant category was wellbeing and we saw evidence that removing demands, especially the demand to attend school, was a driver of wellbeing for a significant minority of pupils, particularly autistic pupils, and their parents/carers. Overall, we observed no differences in mental health experiences between the two groups of parents, also mirroring quantitative findings. We know that autistic children and young people, and their caregivers, are at increased risk of mental ill health. We asked whether the first 6 months of COVID-19 exacerbated that risk, and whether the implications were different for autistic pupils and their caregivers, than for those with other special educational needs and difficulties. In a linked paper, we found that caregivers of autistic pupils reported higher levels of depression and anxiety symptoms in their children than parents of children with other special educational needs and difficulties (Toseeb & Asbury, 2022). For pupils with other special educational needs and difficulties, their parent-reported anxiety symptoms eased over time while remaining high throughout for autistic pupils. There were no differences in mental health and wellbeing between caregivers of autistic pupils and those with other special educational needs and difficulties. Here, we used parents' written descriptions of their own and their child's mental health during the first 6 months of COVID-19 to explore these linked findings in greater depth. We identified strong evidence of worry and distress for all, but most prominently autistic children and young people. Our finding that worry and distress declined over time for pupils with other special educational needs and difficulties, but not for autistic pupils, was supported and we observed a few differences between caregivers. We also found evidence of wellbeing throughout the sample, and examples of some (mainly autistic) pupils benefitting from a reduction in demands (e.g. going to school). This has implications for our understanding of the school experience for autistic pupils. Findings suggest that the mental health of autistic children and young people may have been disproportionately affected during the first 6 months of COVID-19 and that careful consideration of optimal support, from both health and education perspectives, is vital. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Migrants, that is people who experience forced displacement or move based on being lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, two-spirit, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI+), experience increased trauma and stigma when compared to heterosexual and cisgender people. The aim of this paper is to highlight LGBTQI+ migrants' experiences of health and social care encounters in Canada. Gadamerian hermeneutics and an intersectionality lens was used to understand LGBTQI+ migrants' experiences. A total of 16 semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with LGBTQI+ migrants. Themes of stigma and discrimination were identified as (1) "I never went back": Stigma as an exclusionary experience, (2) "Is [your country of birth] really that bad": Fear, safety, and cultural stigma, and (3) "The circle ... is not going to fix my life": LGBTQI+ migrants' call for affirming care. Results suggest that health and social care practices are stigmatizing and discriminatory which negatively impacts LGBTQI+ migrant mental health. Salient practices for promoting mental health included affirming LGBTQI+ identities and orientations through health and social care practices that are culturally safe as well as trauma and violence informed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Substance use and mental ill health constitute a major public health burden, and a key global policy priority is to reduce illicit and other harmful substance use. Amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS) are the second most used class of illicit drugs and a range of mental health issues have been documented amongst users. This paper explores the relationship between mental health and ATS use, through a thematic analysis of qualitative interviews with n = 18 current and former ATS users in England. The findings are presented by trajectory point of; (1) Initiation of ATS use; (2) continued and increased ATS use and (3) decreased and remitted ATS use. This work helps to develop understanding around the complex and bi-directional relationship between ATS use and mental health. Many ATS users lead chaotic lives and engage in multiple risk behaviours, however there is a need to better understand and conceptualise the dynamic interaction between different individual, social, environment and cultural factors that determine individuals' mental health and substance use. There is no 'one size fits all' approach to prevention and treatment, and these findings highlight the need for more joined-up, tailored and holistic approaches to intervention development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper is to describe a novel form of qualitative inquiry, dialogical inquiry, which allows for multiple investigators from different positions or traditions to collaboratively interpret qualitative data, engaging in a process of mutual influence to enrich both themselves and the process of analysis. We provide a clearly operationalized method, which is inspired by the philosophy of Bakhtin, as reimagined through practices from Open Dialogue, a social network–based approach to dialogical psychotherapy. Drawing on a specific text analysis of Jay Neugeboren's novel "Imagining Robert," we demonstrate how our dialogical inquiry approach can bring reflexive practice in qualitative research to life through mutual reflections among investigators. We show how dialogical inquiry can generate appreciation for multiple perspectives, awareness of affective and epistemic positions, and new knowledge production. This approach could be particularly suited for research teams that wish to actively generate new kinds of knowledge, or to privilege the voices of coresearchers from diverse social, political, and epistemic positions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]