Hearing Voices Groups Survey
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Staff and Voice Hearer Views on Hearing Voices Groups within the NHS: A Survey Study
IRAS ID
338216
Contact name
Alison Branitsky
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
University of Manchester
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 6 months, 21 days
Research summary
Hearing voices that nobody else can hear (auditory hallucinations) can be a distressing and isolating experience. Previous research has shown that meeting others with similar experiences can help people feel less isolated, cope better with their voice hearing experiences, and experience more hope for the future. There are many peer support groups in the community for people who hear voices – these are called Hearing Voices Groups (HVGs). However, we are interested in finding out if these groups can be run in the NHS as well and if so, how these groups would work.
To answer this question, we are conducting a survey with NHS service users who hear voices, NHS staff who work in mental health services, and people who attend HVGs in the community. These surveys will ask about people’s experiences and opinions of the groups, the most important features of HVGs and if there would be any challenges to running them in the NHS.
We are hoping to recruit 100 NHS staff and 100 NHS service users and people who attend HVGs in the community to complete the survey. The survey will be anonymous, which means that nobody will be able to tell who filled it out. The surveys should take about 15-20 minutes to complete and they can be filled out either on paper or online. The surveys will help us understand if people want more HVGs in the NHS, how these groups should run, and what challenges there might be to creating more of them.
This study is being sponsored by the University of Manchester.
Lay Summary of Results
The purpose of this study was to understand both what NHS mental health staff and individuals who hear voices think of running hearing voices peer support groups (HVGs) in the NHS. We conducted a survey study to understand people's opinions about these groups and if and how they should be run in the NHS. 49 NHS staff members and 26 voice hearers completed the survey. NHS staff thought that HVGs were helpful and believed they helped service users meet others with similar experiences, normalise their experiences, and learn to cope better. NHS staff thought that these groups should be run more widely in the NHS, but were concerned about how the groups managed risk. Voice hearers also thought it would be helpful to have groups in the NHS because it would make them more accessible and available. However, voice hearers also worried that if groups were run in the NHS, they may lose their distinct peer values and ethos.
Has the registry been updated to include summary results?: No
If yes - please enter the URL to summary results:
If no – why not?: This study was no registered on a publicly accessible register.
Did you follow your dissemination plan submitted in the IRAS application form (Q A51)?: Pending
If yes, describe or provide URLs to disseminated materials:
If pending, date when dissemination is expected: 30/09/2025
If no, explain why you didn't follow it:
Have participants been informed of the results of the study?: No
If yes, describe and/or provide URLs to materials shared and how they were shared:
If pending, date when feedback is expected:
If no, explain why they haven't: As study participation was anonymous, participants cannot be contacted to be informed of the results. Results will be published open access so interested parties can view them in full.
Have you enabled sharing of study data with others?: Yes
If yes, describe or provide URLs to how it has been shared: Study data will be available upon reasonable request from the authors.
If no, explain why sharing hasn't been enabled:
Have you enabled sharing of tissue samples and associated data with others?: No
If yes, describe or provide a URL:
If no, explain why: N/AREC name
London - Surrey Borders Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
24/PR/0140
Date of REC Opinion
9 Feb 2024
REC opinion
Favourable Opinion