3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Evaluation of the Perceived Benefits of a Peer Support Group for People with Mental Health Problems

      , ,
      Nursing Reports
      MDPI AG

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This paper reports on a service evaluation of PeerTalk, a nationwide charity that organises and facilitates peer support groups for individuals with depression. Therefore, the aim was to gather and synthesise benefits perceived by support group attendees. Thematic analysis was undertaken following the collection of data from two group interviews comprising PeerTalk support group attendees. Once those data were analysed, five key themes emerged: (1) talking/listening, (2) socialising, (3) contrast with other services, (4) personal benefits, and (5) structure and accessibility. Two further minor themes were also identified: (6) wider benefits and (7) areas for development that could lead to overall improvements to the service. PeerTalk’s support groups provide multiple opportunities for attendees to meet others who have similar experiences within an environment that does not require formal engagement or commitment. Those that attend find benefit from supporting others and socialising within the group. These benefits are complementary to mainstream services that they may concurrently be involved with, rather than replacing or hindering them. Peer support groups can therefore provide a resource for healthcare professionals to which they can direct individuals who may feel benefit from engaging with other individuals with similar experiences. Sheffield Hallam University granted ethics approval for the study (ER:59716880) prior to its commencement (16 February 2024).

          Related collections

          Most cited references47

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Using thematic analysis in psychology

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

            Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (in depth interviews and focus groups). We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Critical Analysis of Strategies for Determining Rigor in Qualitative Inquiry.

              Criteria for determining the trustworthiness of qualitative research were introduced by Guba and Lincoln in the 1980s when they replaced terminology for achieving rigor, reliability, validity, and generalizability with dependability, credibility, and transferability. Strategies for achieving trustworthiness were also introduced. This landmark contribution to qualitative research remains in use today, with only minor modifications in format. Despite the significance of this contribution over the past four decades, the strategies recommended to achieve trustworthiness have not been critically examined. Recommendations for where, why, and how to use these strategies have not been developed, and how well they achieve their intended goal has not been examined. We do not know, for example, what impact these strategies have on the completed research. In this article, I critique these strategies. I recommend that qualitative researchers return to the terminology of social sciences, using rigor, reliability, validity, and generalizability. I then make recommendations for the appropriate use of the strategies recommended to achieve rigor: prolonged engagement, persistent observation, and thick, rich description; inter-rater reliability, negative case analysis; peer review or debriefing; clarifying researcher bias; member checking; external audits; and triangulation.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Nursing Reports
                Nursing Reports
                MDPI AG
                2039-4403
                September 2024
                July 12 2024
                : 14
                : 3
                : 1661-1675
                Article
                10.3390/nursrep14030124
                d87ab6fd-df37-44d4-b502-710dee2023ae
                © 2024

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article