Frequent readers won’t be surprised to read we are always keen to support improvements in the quality of research. One of the clarion calls of many systematic reviews is for better quality studies to increase the numbers of trials that meet inclusion criteria.
It was with great interest therefore that we read of the commissioning of expert reviews on research methods in social care research by the NIHR School for Social Care Research at the London School of Economics. Thanks to Dr. Michael Clark (Research Programme Manager) for drawing these to our attention.
The reviews so far completed are:
- Research with Black and Ethnic Minority people using social services (PDF)
Tom Vickers (Durham University), Gary Craig (Durham University), Karl Atkin (University of York) - Observational methods (PDF)
Professor Jim Mansell (University of Kent) - Research with d/Deaf people (PDF)
Alys Young, Ros Hunt (University of Manchester) - Care homes (PDF)
Rebekah Luff (University of Surrey), Zara Ferreira (City University), Julienne Meyer (City University) - Mathematical modelling and its application to social care (PDF)
Hazel Squires and Paul Tappenden (University of Sheffield), SSCR Methods Review 7, NIHR School for Social Care Research, London - Overview of outcome measurement for adults using social care services and support (PDF)
Ann Netten (University of Kent), SSCR Methods Review 6, NIHR School for Social Care Research - The use of ‘large-scale datasets’ in UK social Care research (PDF)
Shereen Hussein (King’s College London) SSCR Methods Review 5, NIHR School for Social Care Research, London. - Research governance and ethics for adult social care research: procedures, practices and challenges (PDF)
John Woolham (Coventry University). SSCR Methods Review 4, NIHR School for Social Care Research, London - A brief guide to carrying out research about adult social care services for visually impaired people (PDF)
Nigel Charles (Plymouth University), SSCR Methods Review 3, NIHR School for Social Care Research, London - LGBT sexualities in social care research (PDF)
Elizabeth Price (University of Hull), SSCR Methods Review 3, NIHR School for Social Care Research, London - Qualitative Methods Overview (PDF)
Dr Jo Moriarty (King’s College London), SSCR Methods Review 1, NIHR School for Social Care Research, London
You can also view a list of forthcoming reviews on the LSE website.
We here at WELD are particularly interested in the review of observational methods by professor Mansell.
This review looked at observational research, which is particularly useful for people with severe or profound learning disabilities, who may be unable to answer interviews or questionnaires about their experiences. The review deals with
- what to observe
- how to define it so that information gathered is valid and reliable
- sampling (how often to observe and for how long)
- practical steps to make observations in services
- how to analyse and present observational data
The author concludes that quantitative direct observation measures aspects of the lives of people as they live them where people using services are unable to answer interviews or questionnaires about their experience
A key finding from observational studies of this type has been to provide evidence of a better life in community-based services for people with learning disabilities, but also that it cannot be assumed that new models will automatically provide this better life. Such studies have also helped to focus on the key role played by staff and that the way staff provide help is an important predictor of outcomes.
The author points out that such methods have also been used in undercover filming to document abuse and neglect to provide direct evidence of the reality of people’s lives in situations where they cannot speak for themselves.
He suggests that observation is
likely to continue to be an important addition to the range of methods used in social care research.”
You can read the full review here:
Observational methods (PDF) Professor Jim Mansell (University of Kent)
I read Jim Mansell’s review with interest. The use of observers to look at the quality of care given to people who are profoundly disabled needs to be an integral part of every care setting. In other words teach care staff to care for service users the way they themselves would like to be cared for. Unfortunately this type of research adds another layer of staff to the care budget and the powers that be will not or cannot pay.
My son, who has a physical and intellectual disability, was only truly fulfilled when he was in education. (school and then college). It was only when he graduated into adult care (social services) did his quality of life deteriorate. leading to many spells of depression. One senior pyschologist did in fact request from our PCT, a occupational therapist to shadow him for a week, to see what would help him to be more involved in the sessions at the day centre. Her report was an accurate review of my son’s difficulties, and her suggestions and aids that she gave to the staff did in fact help him to be more integrated into the sessions. Unfortunately, and so typical of what is wrong with social care, the new regime only lasted about three weeks because the staff did not have the resources or man power to carry on.
Consequently, all these reviews written by so many learned men and women, are only useful if they are acted upon. It is so sad that they are not.
Hi Pauline, thanks for your comment. The review I think shows very clearly what a powerful tool observation can be -as you say, really trying to step into the shoes of somebody and get a sense of what life is like for them. This is something that many quality tools also try to do, for example the Quality Network, BILD’s outcomes based approach. It is time and resource consuming, but can result in much beter informed planning snd support, john.