therapist , who was able to support our patient researchers between sessions .
Karen initially designed an outline schedule for the 10 face-to-face sessions , which was presented during the first session . However , it became apparent in the first session that this was not collaborative enough ( it ’ s hard to initially trust the PAR process ).
Due to our collaborative and inclusive approach , developing and agreeing the research question took longer than anticipated , so this became more of a guide to the things the team needed to consider during the project .
The team quickly decided that it wanted the research question to be something to do with goal setting . However , deciding the final research question took longer .
Three sessions were used to consider different aspects of this topic , before refining the exact research question . It was important to allow this amount of time to enable full and wide-ranging discussions , as well as ensuring that the whole team remained interested in the topic area .
Techniques used to support participation included :
• Having clear , co-created ground rules ensured equity between team members .
• Time and space were given to ensure that all participants felt valued and able to contribute .
• Coaching techniques and positive questioning to explore ideas and suggestions .
• The learning and experiences from the previous Recovery College course were used as a useful reference point to support applying theory to the practical development of our proposal discussions .
• Team members had access to a range of practical materials to support their participation – flipcharts , personal whiteboards , notepads , shared session summary notes .
The overarching research question that was developed was : Do patients and OTs prioritise and share the same goals in a secure environment ? Sub questions were developed , and the best approach was discussed .
Led by our patient researchers , the team chose to answer this overarching question through a three-stage research design ; focus groups , a national survey and interviews . Each stage leads into the next to enable to question to be explored in depth as well as breadth .
Consideration was given to the best approach for the sub questions being answered , as well as giving as many people as possible to have their voice heard about the subject of goalsetting where the method allowed .
Achievements
The project was truly collaborative , with all six members having equal voice and being able to share their expertise and opinion . This included patient researchers having confidence to make decisions between sessions that were then discussed with the whole team .
The patient researchers were fully committed to the project , participating with enthusiasm and prioritising meetings over other opportunities , including a football tournament ! This was despite knowing that they would not be able to carry out the research , as they would have left the unit by the time funding would be secured . Everyone attended every session and came prepared , having completed their allocated tasks .
The team was successful in co-creating a research proposal , which has been written in an easy read format .
Feedback from participants
Our three servicer user researchers did not give any negative feedback about the project . They reported finding it a very positive experience :
• ‘ I really enjoyed the group as I learnt new skills and got to understand why people do research .’
• ‘ I enjoyed the way we put forward our experiences and ideas as a group … it was an educational experience that brought forth new skills .’
• ‘[ I was worried ] that it would involve new language that I hadn ’ t used or experienced before … [ I liked ] having a project that stimulated me and made me think in ways I don ’ t normally think .’
• ‘[ I learned that ] no idea is wrong or bad and working in a team can generate more information where ideas bounce from person to person .’
34 OTnews April 2023