Involving service users in the development of the Support at Home: Interventions to Enhance Life in Dementia Carer Supporter Programme for family carers of people with dementia.

BACKGROUND: Involving service users in research can be an effective way of improving the practicalities and acceptability of interventions for target end users. OBJECTIVES: The current paper presented two consensus methods, not commonly used in consultation with service users, to develop a peer support intervention for family carers of people with dementia (SHIELD Carer Supporter Programme). DESIGN: Study 1 was a modified Delphi process combined with a consensus conference to explore details of the intervention from the carer and volunteer perspective. Study 2 was an anonymous reader consultation to develop informed consent documents for the intervention trial. Median scores were used to measure and establish consensus. Open-ended responses were thematically analysed. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Study 1: twenty-five delegates participated (eight were current/former carers) in the first round Delphi questionnaire, with 21 attending the conference. Five completed the Round 2 questionnaire. Study 2: six family carers and 11 people with dementia took part in the consultation. RESULTS: Study 1: the role of the peer supporters was developed in terms of relational and practical aspects of the intervention. Study 2: changes were made to the documents, reflecting service user input, but the effectiveness of this less discursive type of service user involvement was unclear. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Study 1 methods allowed for service users to contribute significantly and meaningfully, but maybe limiting some design innovation. Study 2 took a more traditional and less collaborative approach. This has implications for balancing the needs of the research with meaningful service user involvement in research.

A Good War? Exploring British veterans' moral evaluation of deployment.

Historically, war trauma research has concentrated on the relationship between level of exposure and development of post-traumatic symptoms. More recently, it has been recognized that intra- and interpersonal differences can mediate how service personnel are affected by their experiences. This paper is a qualitative study exploring moral evaluations of 30 British male veterans towards their deployment in conflicts from WWII to the most recent Iraq War (2003-2009). Retrospective thematic analysis is used to explore moral evaluation and societal support. Four categories emerged based on veterans' moral evaluation of deployment: justifiable, implicitly justifiable, unclear, and unjustifiable. Analysis revealed broad differences between these groups. Veterans able to justify their experiences reported more positive aspects of both deployment and societal support than those unable to justify their deployment. These findings make clear the importance of future research exploring the interactions between civilians and service personnel, and the impact this has on mental health.