Involving mental health service users in suicide-related research: a qualitative inquiry model
Engaging service users Previous     Next

Involving mental health service users in suicide-related research: a qualitative inquiry model

David Lees Lecturer in nursing, University of Tasmania, Launceston, TAS, Australia
Nicholas Procter Chair of mental health nursing, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
Denise Fassett Dean of the Faculty of Health Science, University of Tasmania, Launceston, TAS, Australia
Christine Handley Senior lecturer, University of Tasmania, Launceston, TAS, Australia

Aim To describe the research model developed and successfully deployed as part of a multi-method qualitative study investigating suicidal service-users’ experiences of mental health nursing care.

Background Quality mental health care is essential to limiting the occurrence and burden of suicide, however there is a lack of relevant research informing practice in this context. Research utilising first-person accounts of suicidality is of particular importance to expanding the existing evidence base. However, conducting ethical research to support this imperative is challenging.

Discussion The model discussed here illustrates specific and more generally applicable principles for qualitative research regarding sensitive topics and involving potentially vulnerable service-users.

Conclusion Researching into mental health service users with first-person experience of suicidality requires stakeholder and institutional support, researcher competency, and participant recruitment, consent, confidentiality, support and protection.

Implications Research with service users into their experiences of sensitive issues such as suicidality can result in rich and valuable data, and may also provide positive experiences of collaboration and inclusivity. If challenges are not met, objectification and marginalisation of service-users may be reinforced, and limitations in the evidence base and service provision may be perpetuated.

Nurse Researcher. 23, 4, 30-34. doi: 10.7748/nr.23.4.30.s7


Peer review

This article has been subject to double-blind review and has been checked using antiplagiarism software

Conflict of interest

None declared

Received: 24 March 2015

Accepted: 29 July 2015

Want to read more?

Subscribe for unlimited access

Try 1 month’s access for just £1 and get:

Your subscription package includes:
  • Full access to the website and the online archive
  • Quaterly digital edition
  • RCNi Portfolio and interactive CPD quizzes
  • RCNi Learning with 200+ evidence-based modules
  • 10 articles a month from any other RCNi journal
RCN student member? Try Nursing Standard Student
Already subscribed? Log in

Alternatively, you can purchase access to this article for the next seven days. Buy now