Grundy Andrew C, Bhutta Anam, Mahyoub Ashgan, Jenkins Rebecca, Mir Sadia, Miah Jahanara, Faragher Gail, Lovell Karina
Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester; National Institute of Health and Care Research, Applied Research Collaboration-Greater Manchester (NIHR ARC-GM), Manchester, UK.
Mental Health Research for Innovation Centre (M-RIC), Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Health Expect. 2025 Oct;28(5):e70362. doi: 10.1111/hex.70362.
The training of lived experience researchers (LERs) for involvement in research design and conduct is a key principle to its success. However, little is known about what research methods training is acceptable and beneficial to novice LERs.
A training evaluation using a slightly modified version of the Training Acceptability Rating Scale (TARS), and a concluding stakeholder engagement workshop. Responses to the quantitative items were summarised using descriptive statistics, and qualitative responses were coded using content analysis.
RESULTS/FINDINGS: The trainees rated the overall training favourably (median overall TARS = 54/63; median acceptability = 31/36; median perceived impact = 23/27), but there was slight variation between sessions. There were six qualitative themes: valued learning format; valuing research knowledge; valued the centring of lived experience; gaps in training provision; more lived experience research focussed; and consider further support of LERs.
The training was found to be acceptable and beneficial, with trainees particularly valuing lived experience facilitation, case studies and tailored content. Trainees suggested the training could be improved by addressing theoretical, existential and skills gaps, and by making it more lived experience research focussed throughout.
This training evaluation and engagement workshop project was developed and overseen by a long-term service user with lived experience of mental distress. The workshop topic guide was co-designed with four people with lived experience, who were also involved in data analysis and co-constructed the findings. Finally, this paper concludes with a commentary on this study provided by a trainee with lived experience.
培训有实际生活经验的研究者（LERs）参与研究设计和实施是研究成功的关键原则。然而，对于何种研究方法培训对新手LERs是可接受且有益的，人们知之甚少。
使用经略微修改的培训可接受性评定量表（TARS）进行培训评估，并举办一次利益相关者参与总结研讨会。对定量项目的回答采用描述性统计进行总结，定性回答采用内容分析进行编码。
结果/发现：学员对整体培训评价良好（TARS总分中位数=54/63；可接受性中位数=31/36；感知影响中位数=23/27），但各场次之间存在细微差异。有六个定性主题：重视学习形式；重视研究知识；重视以实际生活经验为中心；培训提供方面的差距；更多聚焦实际生活经验研究；以及考虑对LERs提供进一步支持。
发现该培训是可接受且有益的，学员特别重视实际生活经验引导、案例研究和量身定制的内容。学员建议，通过弥补理论、存在主义和技能方面的差距，并使其在整个过程中更聚焦实际生活经验研究，培训可以得到改进。
这个培训评估和参与研讨会项目是由一位有精神困扰实际生活经验的长期服务使用者开发和监督的。研讨会主题指南是与四位有实际生活经验的人共同设计的，他们也参与了数据分析并共同构建了研究结果。最后，本文以一位有实际生活经验的学员对本研究的评论作为结尾。
