Evaluating qualitative data analysis workshops from the perspective of public contributors

Alice Moult; Carmel McGrath; Kate Lippiett; Caroline Coope; Andrew Turner; Simon Chillcott; Linda Parton; Pam Holloway; Sally Dace; Andy Gibson; Clare Jinks; Zoe Paskins; Mari Carmen Portillo; Cindy Mann; Krysia Dziedzic

doi:10.1186/s40900-024-00628-5

Evaluating qualitative data analysis workshops from the perspective of public contributors

Alice Moult^*, Carmel McGrath, Kate Lippiett, Caroline Coope, Andrew Turner, Simon Chillcott, Linda Parton, Pam Holloway, Sally Dace, Andy Gibson, Clare Jinks, Zoe Paskins, Mari Carmen Portillo, Cindy Mann, Krysia Dziedzic

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article (Academic Journal) › peer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background:
The aim of this project is to evaluate public contributors’ experiences of their involvement in qualitative data analysis workshops during an on-going research project titled ‘Personalised Primary care for Patients with Multiple long-term conditions’.

Methods:
Four qualitative data analysis workshops were designed and conducted between August and December 2023. We used the Cube evaluation framework (henceforth referred to as the Cube) to evaluate the workshops. The Cube suggests four domains for successful PPI (voice, agenda, change, contribute).Within Workshops One, Two and Three public contributors had to login to an account to access the Cube; this was modified in Workshop Four following feedback from public contributors.

Findings:
Across the four workshops the Cube was completed 11 times. Across all four workshops, public contributors thought that their voice was heard, that there were diverse ways to contribute and that they led the agenda. Public contributors thought that researchers responded to their questions and issues, when necessary.

Conclusion:
This evaluation has shown that public contributors can gain new skills and lead qualitative data analysis discussions.

Original language	English
Article number	99
Number of pages	11
Journal	Research Involvement and Engagement
Volume	10
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-024-00628-5
Publication status	Published - 27 Sept 2024

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2024.

Access to Document

10.1186/s40900-024-00628-5Licence: CC BY

Handle.net

Persistent link

Cite this

Moult, A., McGrath, C., Lippiett, K., Coope, C., Turner, A., Chillcott, S., Parton, L., Holloway, P., Dace, S., Gibson, A., Jinks, C., Paskins, Z., Portillo, M. C., Mann, C., & Dziedzic, K. (2024). Evaluating qualitative data analysis workshops from the perspective of public contributors. Research Involvement and Engagement, 10, Article 99. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-024-00628-5

@article{1331a9501f11435e9332836c2e6944b8,

title = "Evaluating qualitative data analysis workshops from the perspective of public contributors",

abstract = "Background: The aim of this project is to evaluate public contributors{\textquoteright} experiences of their involvement in qualitative data analysis workshops during an on-going research project titled {\textquoteleft}Personalised Primary care for Patients with Multiple long-term conditions{\textquoteright}. Methods: Four qualitative data analysis workshops were designed and conducted between August and December 2023. We used the Cube evaluation framework (henceforth referred to as the Cube) to evaluate the workshops. The Cube suggests four domains for successful PPI (voice, agenda, change, contribute).Within Workshops One, Two and Three public contributors had to login to an account to access the Cube; this was modified in Workshop Four following feedback from public contributors. Findings: Across the four workshops the Cube was completed 11 times. Across all four workshops, public contributors thought that their voice was heard, that there were diverse ways to contribute and that they led the agenda. Public contributors thought that researchers responded to their questions and issues, when necessary. Conclusion: This evaluation has shown that public contributors can gain new skills and lead qualitative data analysis discussions.",

author = "Alice Moult and Carmel McGrath and Kate Lippiett and Caroline Coope and Andrew Turner and Simon Chillcott and Linda Parton and Pam Holloway and Sally Dace and Andy Gibson and Clare Jinks and Zoe Paskins and Portillo, \{Mari Carmen\} and Cindy Mann and Krysia Dziedzic",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} The Author(s) 2024. ",

year = "2024",

month = sep,

day = "27",

doi = "10.1186/s40900-024-00628-5",

language = "English",

volume = "10",

journal = "Research Involvement and Engagement",

issn = "2056-7529",

publisher = "BioMed Central Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluating qualitative data analysis workshops from the perspective of public contributors

AU - Moult, Alice

AU - McGrath, Carmel

AU - Lippiett, Kate

AU - Coope, Caroline

AU - Turner, Andrew

AU - Chillcott, Simon

AU - Parton, Linda

AU - Holloway, Pam

AU - Dace, Sally

AU - Gibson, Andy

AU - Jinks, Clare

AU - Paskins, Zoe

AU - Portillo, Mari Carmen

AU - Mann, Cindy

AU - Dziedzic, Krysia

PY - 2024/9/27

Y1 - 2024/9/27

N2 - Background: The aim of this project is to evaluate public contributors’ experiences of their involvement in qualitative data analysis workshops during an on-going research project titled ‘Personalised Primary care for Patients with Multiple long-term conditions’. Methods: Four qualitative data analysis workshops were designed and conducted between August and December 2023. We used the Cube evaluation framework (henceforth referred to as the Cube) to evaluate the workshops. The Cube suggests four domains for successful PPI (voice, agenda, change, contribute).Within Workshops One, Two and Three public contributors had to login to an account to access the Cube; this was modified in Workshop Four following feedback from public contributors. Findings: Across the four workshops the Cube was completed 11 times. Across all four workshops, public contributors thought that their voice was heard, that there were diverse ways to contribute and that they led the agenda. Public contributors thought that researchers responded to their questions and issues, when necessary. Conclusion: This evaluation has shown that public contributors can gain new skills and lead qualitative data analysis discussions.

AB - Background: The aim of this project is to evaluate public contributors’ experiences of their involvement in qualitative data analysis workshops during an on-going research project titled ‘Personalised Primary care for Patients with Multiple long-term conditions’. Methods: Four qualitative data analysis workshops were designed and conducted between August and December 2023. We used the Cube evaluation framework (henceforth referred to as the Cube) to evaluate the workshops. The Cube suggests four domains for successful PPI (voice, agenda, change, contribute).Within Workshops One, Two and Three public contributors had to login to an account to access the Cube; this was modified in Workshop Four following feedback from public contributors. Findings: Across the four workshops the Cube was completed 11 times. Across all four workshops, public contributors thought that their voice was heard, that there were diverse ways to contribute and that they led the agenda. Public contributors thought that researchers responded to their questions and issues, when necessary. Conclusion: This evaluation has shown that public contributors can gain new skills and lead qualitative data analysis discussions.

U2 - 10.1186/s40900-024-00628-5

DO - 10.1186/s40900-024-00628-5

M3 - Article (Academic Journal)

C2 - 39334502

SN - 2056-7529

VL - 10

JO - Research Involvement and Engagement

JF - Research Involvement and Engagement

M1 - 99

ER -

Evaluating qualitative data analysis workshops from the perspective of public contributors

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Access to Document

Handle.net

Fingerprint

Cite this