Network methods to support user involvement in qualitative data analyses: an introduction to Participatory Theme Elicitation

Paul Best, Jennifer Badham, Rekesh Corepal, Roisin F O'Neill, Mark A Tully, Frank Kee, Ruth F Hunter, Paul Best, Jennifer Badham, Rekesh Corepal, Roisin F O'Neill, Mark A Tully, Frank Kee, Ruth F Hunter

Abstract

Background: While Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) is encouraged throughout the research process, engagement is typically limited to intervention design and post-analysis stages. There are few approaches to participatory data analyses within complex health interventions.

Methods: Using qualitative data from a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT), this proof-of-concept study tests the value of a new approach to participatory data analysis called Participatory Theme Elicitation (PTE). Forty excerpts were given to eight members of a youth advisory PPI panel to sort into piles based on their perception of related thematic content. Using algorithms to detect communities in networks, excerpts were then assigned to a thematic cluster that combined the panel members' perspectives. Network analysis techniques were also used to identify key excerpts in each grouping that were then further explored qualitatively.

Results: While PTE analysis was, for the most part, consistent with the researcher-led analysis, young people also identified new emerging thematic content.

Conclusions: PTE appears promising for encouraging user led identification of themes arising from qualitative data collected during complex interventions. Further work is required to validate and extend this method.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02455986 . Retrospectively Registered on 21 May 2015.

Keywords: Network analysis; Participatory analysis; Patient and public involvement; Trials; User involvement.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was granted ethical approval by the School of Medicine, Dentistry and Bio-medical Sciences Research Ethic Committee, Queen’s University, Belfast (REF: 15.09v3).

Consent for publication

All personal data has been anonymised, Consent for publication was gained via project Information Sheets made available as part of the study

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Preparation of focus group data. *Each box labelled 1–8 represents an individual youth advisory panel (YAP) member
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Sorting example
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Constructing the network for grouping
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Network diagram of sorting results. Each circle represents a quote and a line between them indicates that at least one youth advisory panel (YAP) member placed the two excerpts into the same pile, with a thicker line where more YAP members did so. Circles with the same colours indicate that the relevant excerpts were assigned to the same theme, with three excerpts (ID1, ID19 and ID36) not belonging to any theme

References

    1. Hayes H, Buckland S, Tarpey M. Briefing notes for researchers: involving the public in NHS, public health and social care research. Eastleigh: Involve; 2012.
    1. Richards T, Snow R, Schroter S. Logging The BMJ’s ‘patient journey’. BMJ. 2015;351:h4396. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h4396.
    1. McLaughlin H. Involving young service users as co-researchers: possibilities, benefits and costs. Br J Soc Work. 2006;36:1395–410. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bch420.
    1. Kellett M. Rethinking children and research: attitudes in contemporary society. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group; 2010.
    1. Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, Suleman R. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. Patient. 2014;7:387–95. doi: 10.1007/s40271-014-0065-0.
    1. Gillard S, Simons L, Turner K, Lucock M, Edwards C. Patient and public involvement in the coproduction of knowledge: reflection on the analysis of qualitative data in a mental health study. Qual Health Res. 2012;22:1126–37. doi: 10.1177/1049732312448541.
    1. Horgan D. Child participatory research methods: attempts to go ‘deeper’. Childhood. 2016;24:1–15.
    1. Cornwall A, Jewkes R. What is participatory research? Soc Sci Med. 1995;41:1667–76. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(95)00127-S.
    1. Gamble C, Dudley L, Allam A, et al. Patient and public involvement in the early stages of clinical trial development: a systematic cohort investigation. BMJ Open. 2014;4:1–11.
    1. Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, Altman D, Moher D, Barber R, Denegri S, Entwistle A, Littlejohns P, Morris C, Suleman R, Thomas V, Tysall C. ‘The GRIPP 2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research’. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3:1–7.
    1. Dudley L, Gamble C, Allam A, Bell P, Buck D, Goodare H, et al. A little more conversation please? Qualitative study of researchers’ and patients’ interview accounts of training for patient and public involvement in clinical trials. Trials. 2015;16:190. doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-0667-4.
    1. Nind M. Participatory data analysis: a step too far? Qual Res. 2011;11:349–63. doi: 10.1177/1468794111404310.
    1. Byrne A, Canavan J, Millar M. Participatory research and the voice‐centred relational method of data analysis: is it worth it? Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2009;12:67–77. doi: 10.1080/13645570701606044.
    1. Lundy L, McEvoy L, Byrne B. Working with young children as co-researchers: an approach informed by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Early Educ Dev. 2011;22:714–36. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2011.596463.
    1. Coad J, Evans R. Reflections on practical approaches to involving children and young people in the data analysis process. Child Soc. 2008;22:41–52. doi: 10.1111/j.1099-0860.2006.00062.x.
    1. Sweeney A, Greenwood KE, Williams S, Wykes T, Rose DS. Hearing the voices of service user researchers in collaborative qualitative data analysis: the case for multiple coding. Health Expect. 2013;16:e89–99. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00810.x.
    1. Garfield S, Jheeta S, Jacklin A, Bischler A, Norton C, Franklin BD. Patient and public involvement in data collection for health services research: a descriptive study. Res Involv Engagem. 2015;1:8. doi: 10.1186/s40900-015-0006-7.
    1. Garfield S, Jheeta S, Husson F, Jacklin A, Bischler A, Norton C, Franklin BD. Lay involvement in the analysis of qualitative data in health services research: a descriptive study. Res Involv Engagem 2016;2:1–12.
    1. Kellett M. How to develop children as researchers: a step by step guide to teaching the research process. London: Sage; 2005.
    1. Rosenberg S, Park KM. The method of sorting as a data-gathering procedure in multivariate research. Multivar Behav Res. 1975;10:489–502. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr1004_7.
    1. Spencer D. Card sorting: designing usable categories. New York: Rosenfield Media; 2009.
    1. Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011;6:1–11.
    1. Burke JG, O’Campo P, Peak GL, Gielen AC, McDonnell KA, Trochim WM. An introduction to concept mapping as a participatory public health research method. Qual Health Res. 2005;15:1392–410. doi: 10.1177/1049732305278876.
    1. Hartley J, Benington J. Co-research: a new methodology for new times. Eur J Work Organ Psy. 2000;9:463–76. doi: 10.1080/13594320050203085.
    1. Kirby P. A guide to actively involving young people in research: for researchers, research commissioners, and managers. Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2004.
    1. Morgan H, Thomson G, Crossland N, Dykes F, Hoddinott P. Combining PPI with qualitative research to engage ‘harder-to-reach’ populations: service user groups as co-applicants on a platform study for a trial. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2:1–26.
    1. Best P, Corepal R, O’Neill R, Tully MA, van Sluijs E, Miller S, Dunne L, Connolly P, Cupples ME, Kee F, Hunter RF. Developing and testing the feasibility of the ‘StepSmart Challenge’: A gamified intervention to encourage young people to be more active. (under review). Available on request.
    1. Carver CS, Scheier MF. Control theory: a useful conceptual framework for personality-social, clinical, and health psychology. Psychol Bull. 1982;92:111–35. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.92.1.111.
    1. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman & Co. Ltd.; 1997.
    1. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2000;25:54–67. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.
    1. Corepal R, Best P, O’Neill R, Tully MA, Edwards M, Jago R, Miller S, Kee F, Hunter RF. Exploring the use of gamification for encouraging physical activity in adolescents: A qualitative longitudinal study. (under review). Available on request.
    1. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
    1. Bryman A. Social research methods. 2. New York: Oxford University Press; 2004.
    1. Borg I, Groenen PJF. Modern multidimensional scaling—theory and applications. 2. New York: Springer; 2005.
    1. Csardi G, Nepusz T. The igraph software package for complex network research. Int J Compl Syst. 2006;5:1695.
    1. Girvan M, Newman MEJ. Community structure in social and biological networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002;99:7821–6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.122653799.
    1. Garcia SM, Tor A, Schiff TM. The psychology of competition: a social comparison perspective. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2013;8:634–50. doi: 10.1177/1745691613504114.
    1. Tesser A, Campbell J. Self‐evaluation maintenance and the perception of friends and strangers. J Pers. 1982;50:261–79. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1982.tb00750.x.
    1. Zuckerman EW, Jost JT. What makes you think you’re so popular? Self-evaluation maintenance and the subjective side of the ‘friendship paradox’. Soc Psychol Q. 2001;64:207–23. doi: 10.2307/3090112.
    1. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol. 2000;55:68–78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.
    1. Holland S, Renold E, Ross N, Hillman A. Rights, ‘right on’ or the right thing to do? A critical exploration of young people’s engagement in participative social work research. In: NCRM Working Paper Series 07/08. Cardiff: ESRC National Centre for Research Methods; 2008.
    1. Prior L, Scott D, Hunter R, Donnelly M, Tully MA, Cupples ME, Kee F. Exploring lay views on physical activity and their implications for public health policy. Soc Sci Med. 2014;114:73–80. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.05.015.
    1. Routen AC, Upton D, Edwards MG, Peters DM. The effect of pedometer step goal, feedback and self-monitoring interventions on accelerometer-measured physical activity in children. Grad J Sport Exerc Phys Educ Res. 2014;2:37–53.
    1. NICE. Behaviour change: individual approaches (PH49). London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2014.
    1. Fugard AJB, Potts HWW. Supporting thinking on sample sizes for thematic analyses: a quantitative tool. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2015;18:669–84. doi: 10.1080/13645579.2015.1005453.
    1. Barbour RS. Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ. 2001;322:1115–7. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir