Consulting with children, parents and a teacher to shape a qualitative study
Evidence & Practice Previous     Next

Consulting with children, parents and a teacher to shape a qualitative study

Jill Snodin Senior lecturer in children’s nursing, Faculty of Health and Social Care, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, Lancashire, England
Lucy Bray Reader in children and families, Faculty of Health and Social Care, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, Lancashire, England
Bernie Carter Professor of children’s nursing, Faculty of Health and Social Care, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, Lancashire, England
Barbara Jack Professor of nursing, Faculty of Health and Social Care, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, Lancashire, England

Background Patient and public involvement is an emerging element of contemporary research and reflects an acknowledgement of the expertise of people who have personal knowledge or experience of a research topic.

Aim To discuss the value of consultation in contributing to the ethical and methodological choices underpinning a qualitative study.

Discussion The study discussed explored the perceptions and experiences of children aged four to 12 with long-term conditions of being held still by adults during clinical procedures in acute care. Consultation took place in three stages and involved engagement with a children’s advisory group and members of the public, including parents and a teacher.

Conclusion Engagement shaped the focus, influenced the design and underpinned the ethical basis of the study. In addition, consultation identified that the focus of the research was misunderstood by potential participants and their parents.

Implications for practice Engaging in robust consultation is a valuable process which can inform research design in unexpected ways. Engagement with children ensures that their perspectives are identified and included and shape the study.

Correspondence snodinj@edgehill.ac.uk

Nurse Researcher. 25, 2,39-43. doi: 10.7748/nr.2017.e1525

Received on 12 September 2016

Accepted on 05 December 2016

Published in print on 19 September 2017

Conflict Of Interest

None declared

Peer review

This article has been subject to external double-blind peer review and checked for plagiarism using automated software