Service user involvement in OSWE

1. Service user involvement in OSWE Joanna Fox Anglia Ruskin University and Clare Ockwell Capital Project / Sussex University

2. The outset • User Involvement expected in local projects • Equal involvement in national action learning sets • But no clearly defined parameters to mandate involvement • Limited funding to each project

3. The barriers • Pressure of time – • work done was being squeezed into routine meetings rather than planning specific time for involvement. • “The projects grew organically in different meetings in which staff regularly participate…but where we did not timetable meetings to invite service users to attend”

4. The barriers • The funding needs to reflect the increased work of involving service users and carers in the process of research. One researcher commented: • ‘The funding allowed little development time for academics to work with service user prior to the design stage. This bonding period is crucial to researcher/service user relationships as it is likely to embed the ethos and philosophy of the subject as well as the means by which the data is to be collected’.

5. The enablers • A positive experience • ‘The service user group was excellent in its contribution within the limitations. Their input was informative and the commitment of the representative to the issues was exemplary’. (Lead researcher)

6. Enablers in local project • The enablers were: • being involved in a project • feeling they might be making a difference • payment • lunch • camaraderie

7. Barriers in the national learning set • A variety of practical barriers to involvement were identified for the national project: • The day was inevitably long for people travelling from far flung institutions • Service user consultants (many from background of using mental health services) physically travelling can be a major issue. • Highly academic discussions • Some service users felt unable to feedback meaningfully to their wider groups • There was a lack of process for selecting the people most appropriate to attend

8. Discussion • Best practice • allow time to plan for active public involvement • build respect and mutual understanding • ensure equal access to project activities throughout the research process • offer continual support to members of the public throughout the research process • consider methods of reward and recognition (Involve 2007).

9. From our experience- involvement in local project • From our experience, enablers for a future project of this type may be: • Clearly defined role and purpose set down at the outset, exploring the areas of the work in which involvement is expected • Evidence of service user involvement at the stage of writing the bid • Exploring learning needs with individual service users • Shorter days and more breaks, consideration of physical and practical needs

10. Enablers for national project • Feeling made welcome, the presence and input of service users was wanted and respected • Willingness to explain things that did not readily make sense, particular jargon, difficult ideas • Opportunity for personal development • Good flow of information electronically between meetings (or hard copy information where appropriate) • Payment for both time and travel

11. Over to you: From your experience what are the other enablers and barriers to meaningful involvement?

12. References • Involve (2007) Good practice in active public involvement in research. Accessed on line 20.03.09 http://www.invo.org.uk/pdfs/GoodPracticeD3.pdf