SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • 1
    Barry C, Britten N, Barber N et al. Using reflexivity to optimize teamwork in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 1999; 9: 2644.
  • 2
    Rose D. Telling different stories: user involvement in research. Research, Policy and Planning, 2004; 22: 2330.
  • 3
    Bengtsson-Tops A, Svensson B. Mental health users’ experiences of being interviewed by another user in a research project: a qualitative study. Journal of Mental Health, 2010; 19: 234242.
  • 4
    Trivedi P, Wykes T. From passive subjects to equal partners: qualitative review of user involvement in research. British Journal of Psychiatry, 2002; 181: 468472.
  • 5
    Gillard S, Borschmann R, Turner K et al. What difference does it make? Finding evidence of the impact of mental health service user researchers on research into the experiences of detained psychiatric patients. Health Expectations, 2010; 13: 185194.
  • 6
    Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care: assessing quality in qualitative research. British Medical Journal, 2000; 320: 5052.
  • 7
    Greenwood K, Sweeney A, Williams S et al. CHoice of Outcome in Cbt for psychosEs (CHOICE): the development of a new service user-led outcome measure of CBT for psychosis. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 2010; 36: 126135.
  • 8
    Barbour R. Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? British Medical Journal, 2001; 322: 11151117.
  • 9
    Thompson C, McCaughan D, Cullum N et al. Increasing the visibility of coding decisions in team-based qualitative research in nursing. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 2004; 41: 1520.
  • 10
    Morse J. Perfectly healthy, but dead: the myth of interrater reliability. Qualitative Health Research, 1997; 7: 445447.
  • 11
    Yardley L. Dilemmas in qualitative health research. Psychology and Health, 2000; 15: 215228.
  • 12
    Morse J. Reconceptualizing qualitative evidence. Qualitative Health Research, 2006; 16: 415422.
  • 13
    Ahuvia A. Traditional, interpretive, and reception based content analyses: improving the ability of content analysis to address issues of pragmatic and theoretical concern. Social Indicators Research, 2001; 54: 139172.
  • 14
    Braun V, Clarke V. Using Thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2006; 3: 77101.
  • 15
    Fereday J, Muir-Cochrane E. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2006; 5: 111.
  • 16
    Boyatzis R. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. London: Sage, 1998.
  • 17
    Green J. Commentary: grounded theory and the constant comparative method. British Medical Journal, 1998; 316: 10641065.
  • 18
    Rose D. Having a diagnosis is a qualification for the job. British Medical Journal, 2003; 326: 1331.
  • 19
    Richards L. Qualitative teamwork: making it work. Qualitative Health Research, 1999; 9: 710.
  • 20
    Driedger S, Gallois C, Sanders C et al. Finding common ground in team-based qualitative research using the convergent interviewing method. Qualitative Health Research, 2006; 16: 11451157.
  • 21
    Faulkner A, Thomas P. User-led research and evidence based medicine. British Journal of Psychiatry, 2002; 14: 49.
  • 22
    Cotterell P. Exploring the value of service user involvement in data analysis: ‘Our interpretation is about what lies below the surface’. Educational Action Research, 2008; 16: 517.
  • 23
    Gillard S, Borschmann R, Turner K et al. Producing different analytical narratives, coproducing integrated analytical narrative: a qualitative study of UK detained mental health patient experiences involving service user researchers. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2012; 15: 239254.
  • 24
    Clark C, Scott E, Boydell K et al. Effects of client interviewers on client-reported satisfaction with mental health services. Psychiatric Services, 1999; 50: 961963.