Healthcare Meetings Where the Service User Is Absent: The Ethical and Values-Based Implications for Research

  • Cordet SmartEmail author
  • Lindsay Aikman
  • Madeleine Tremblett
  • Jennifer Dickenson
  • Sifiso Mhlanga
Part of the The Language of Mental Health book series (TLMH)


The MDTsInAction research problem uniquely integrated three ethical contexts: firstly, the context of qualitative mental healthcare research. This emphasises service user involvement to ensure meaningful research. Challenges of benchmarking ethical standards in qualitative healthcare research are also raised. The second context was the topic MDT meetings where service users were absent. This context did not appear to fit with the healthcare context promoting service user involvement. The final context was the use of conversation analysis. This carries an implicit assumption that the analyst is the expert—again, not complementing a healthcare research context promoting service user involvement. Reflections on how these were managed in this research programme are presented, alongside tips for ensuring the highest ethical practice in similar research designs.


  1. Brett, J., Staniszewska, S., Mockford, C., Herron-Marx, S., Hughes, J., Tysall, C., & Suleman, R. (2014). Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: A systematic review. Health Expectations, 17(5), 637–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cohen, D. J., & Crabtree, B. F. (2008). Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care: Controversies and recommendations. The Annals of Family Medicine, 6(4), 331–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Crane, J. (2018). Why the history of public consultation matters for contemporary health policy. Endeavour, 42(1), 9–16. Scholar
  4. Flewitt, R. (2005). Conducting research with young children: Some ethical considerations. Early Child Development and Care, 175(6), 553–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Johnstone, L., Boyle, M., Cromby, J., Dillon, J., Harper, D., Kinderman, P., …, Read, J. (2018). The power threat meaning framework: Towards the identification of patterns in emotional distress, unusual experiences and troubled or troubling behaviour, as an alternative to functional psychiatric diagnosis. Leicester: British Psychological Society.Google Scholar
  6. Lewin, S., & Reeves, S. (2011). Enacting ‘team’ and ‘teamwork’: Using Goffman’s theory of impression management to illuminate interprofessional practice on hospital wards. Social Science and Medicine, 72, 1595–1602. Scholar
  7. Milner, P., & Frawley, P. (2018). From ‘on’ to ‘with’ to ‘by’: People with a learning diability creating a space for the third wave of inclusive research. Qualitative Research. Scholar
  8. Pollock, K. (2012). Procedure versus process: Ethical paradigms and the conduct of qualitative research. BMC Medical Ethics, 13(1), 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Salmon, G. (2013). E-tivities: The key to active online learning. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Sanjari, M., Bahramnezhad, F., Fomani, F. K., Shoghi, M., & Cheraghi, M. A. (2014). Ethical challenges of researchers in qualitative studies: The necessity to develop a specific guideline. Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, 7, 14–20.Google Scholar
  11. Stevenson, F. A., Gibson, W., Pelletier, C., Chrysikou, V., & Park, S. (2015). Reconsidering ‘ethics’ and ‘quality’ in healthcare research: The case for an iterative ethical paradigm. BMC Medical Ethics, 16(1), 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cordet Smart
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lindsay Aikman
    • 2
  • Madeleine Tremblett
    • 1
  • Jennifer Dickenson
    • 3
  • Sifiso Mhlanga
    • 4
  1. 1.School of PsychologyUniversity of PlymouthPlymouthUK
  2. 2.Livewell SouthwestPlymouthUK
  3. 3.Devon Partnership NHS TrustExeterUK
  4. 4.Leicestershire Partnership TrustLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations