PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Lived experience researchers draw on their lived and living experiences to either lead on or inform research. Their personal experiences are relevant to the research topic and so they must manage the interplay of their health and healthcare experiences with the research, population, and data they work with, as well as the more general challenges of being a researcher. Lived experience researchers must navigate these dilemmas in addition to queries over their competency, due to issues relating to intersectionality and epistemic injustice. This justifies a motivation to better understand the experiences of lived experience researchers and develop appropriate and personalised supervision based on their preferences and needs.
METHODS: Q methodology was used to identify a collection of identity-related issues that impact lived experience researchers during PhD research in the context of the UK. These issues were presented in the form of 54 statements to 18 lived experience researchers to prioritise as topics to explore in supervision.
RESULTS: It was found that lived experiences researchers could be grouped into three distinct factors following an inverted factor analysis: Factor 1: Strengthening my identity, skills, growth, and empowerment; Factor 2: Exploring the emotional and relational link I have with the research and Factor 3: Navigating my lived and professional experiences practically and emotionally. The findings suggest that there may be three types of lived experience researchers, each with different needs from supervision, suggesting the population is heterogeneous.
CONCLUSIONS: The research identified a deeper understanding of the needs of lived experience researchers and highlights the importance of personalised supervision according to the individual needs of the researcher and their preferences for supervision. The findings reinforce the importance of integrating a clinical dimension into supervision to support the needs of all lived experience researchers.
METHODS: Q methodology was used to identify a collection of identity-related issues that impact lived experience researchers during PhD research in the context of the UK. These issues were presented in the form of 54 statements to 18 lived experience researchers to prioritise as topics to explore in supervision.
RESULTS: It was found that lived experiences researchers could be grouped into three distinct factors following an inverted factor analysis: Factor 1: Strengthening my identity, skills, growth, and empowerment; Factor 2: Exploring the emotional and relational link I have with the research and Factor 3: Navigating my lived and professional experiences practically and emotionally. The findings suggest that there may be three types of lived experience researchers, each with different needs from supervision, suggesting the population is heterogeneous.
CONCLUSIONS: The research identified a deeper understanding of the needs of lived experience researchers and highlights the importance of personalised supervision according to the individual needs of the researcher and their preferences for supervision. The findings reinforce the importance of integrating a clinical dimension into supervision to support the needs of all lived experience researchers.
摘要：
背景：生活经验研究人员利用他们的生活和生活经验来引导或指导研究。他们的个人经历与研究课题相关，因此他们必须管理他们的健康和医疗保健经验与研究的相互作用，人口,和他们使用的数据，以及作为研究人员的更普遍的挑战。生活经验研究人员除了对他们的能力进行查询之外，还必须应对这些困境，由于与交叉性和认知不公正有关的问题。这证明了更好地了解生活经验研究人员的经验的动机，并根据他们的喜好和需求制定适当和个性化的监督。
方法：Q方法用于识别一系列与身份相关的问题，这些问题会影响英国博士研究期间的生活经验研究人员。这些问题以54个陈述的形式呈现给18个生活经验研究人员，作为在监督中探索的主题优先考虑。
结果：发现生活经历研究人员可以在反向因子分析后分为三个不同的因素：因素1：增强我的身份，技能,增长,因素2：探索我与研究的情感和关系联系，因素3：在实际和情感上导航我的生活和职业经历。研究结果表明，可能有三种类型的生活经验研究人员，每个人都有不同的监督需求，表明种群是异质的。
结论：该研究发现了对生活经验研究人员需求的更深入理解，并根据研究人员的个人需求及其对监督的偏好强调了个性化监督的重要性。这些发现加强了将临床维度纳入监督以支持所有生活经验研究人员需求的重要性。
方法：Q方法用于识别一系列与身份相关的问题，这些问题会影响英国博士研究期间的生活经验研究人员。这些问题以54个陈述的形式呈现给18个生活经验研究人员，作为在监督中探索的主题优先考虑。
结果：发现生活经历研究人员可以在反向因子分析后分为三个不同的因素：因素1：增强我的身份，技能,增长,因素2：探索我与研究的情感和关系联系，因素3：在实际和情感上导航我的生活和职业经历。研究结果表明，可能有三种类型的生活经验研究人员，每个人都有不同的监督需求，表明种群是异质的。
结论：该研究发现了对生活经验研究人员需求的更深入理解，并根据研究人员的个人需求及其对监督的偏好强调了个性化监督的重要性。这些发现加强了将临床维度纳入监督以支持所有生活经验研究人员需求的重要性。
