Bridging the Gap: A Qualitative Study Exploring the Impact of the Involvement of Researchers With Lived Experience on a Multisite Randomised Control Trial in the National Probation Service in England and Wales
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Methodological and ethical arguments support the involvement of individuals with lived experience in research to reduce engagement barriers and ensure those directly affected by studies contribute to knowledge generation. However, there is limited evidence on the impact of including researchers with lived experience of serving a prison or community sentence in clinical trials. This qualitative study aimed to explore the value of involving researchers with lived experience of the criminal justice system as data collectors in the Mentalization for Offending Adult Males (MOAM), a multisite RCT conducted in the National Probation Service in England and Wales. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 trial participants and 17 key stakeholders, either in person or via telephone. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. FINDINGS: Five themes emerged for trial participants and 11 for key stakeholders. For some, lived experience researchers helped overcome engagement barriers by fostering common ground with participants who were serving a prison or community sentence during recruitment. Participants reported that the involvement of lived experience researchers enhanced the study by facilitating knowledge transfer in certain instances. However, their inclusion did not eliminate all barriers and, for some participants, introduced new challenges to engagement. CONCLUSION: Forensic lived experience researchers bridged the gap by fostering trust between data collectors and participants. Future studies should ensure that lived experience researchers receive adequate clinical supervision to support their role. The adopted methodology challenged assumptions about knowledge generation and stereotypes associated with being an ex-offender, benefiting both lived experience and traditional researchers. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The study was developed in collaboration with User Voice (charity number: 1136047), who contributed to the study's design and conduct. The service user organisation co-designed the interview schedule and directed the protocol for participant payments, emphasising a consistent approach to avoid tokenism and ensure equal recognition of all contributions. The dissemination plan was developed in partnership with individuals with lived experience of the criminal justice system.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».