Bacp Ethical Framework

1.1.1 Ethical Considerations

Given that the client participant group is characteristically different to those implementing services, a separate section for ethical considerations was contemplated. As before the DH Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care (2005) and BACP Ethical Framework (BACP, 2013) were consulted for guidance. Many of the same procedures regarding informed consent, confidentiality, data protection, and right to withdraw were re-enacted (see section Interviewing those Implementing Services: Ethical Considerations above). However, it is recognised that this sample represents a potentially vulnerable group, meaning certain approaches were altered to ensure the minimisation of harm.

1.1.1.1 Informed Consent

There is a risk in research involving individuals who have engaged with mental healthcare services as they might not be able to give this consent on their own behalf, lacking the capacity to do so. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 safeguards these individuals by inviting participants to consult with someone such as a carer, should their capacity to give consent be affected. Given the IAPT programme’s inclusion criteria to treat individuals with mild-moderate CMHPs, this was judged to be less of a risk. The programme also implements a number of specialist services for individuals whose capacity may be affected by a learning disability (IAPT, 2009) meaning this would likely be flagged

Given the sensitive topic and stigmatising attitudes surrounding mental healthcare, it can be difficult for individuals to be open and honest about the nature of their engagement with a psychotherapy service (Anderson & Brownlie, 2011; Evans-Lacko, Henderson & Thornicroft, 2013; Mind, 2013). Therefore, certain extra measures were put in place in respect of a participant’s contact information. This research involved the help of several IAPT services and their practitioners so that I would not have access to any of this information prior to them contacting me. Once potential participants expressed an interest their contact details were stored in a password protected folder on a University computer and all contact was made using a University phone line. These details were destroyed 30 days after the interview had taken place in order to allow a certain amount of time for any ongoing correspondence that may have been necessary. No identifiable contact information, including names, was attached to the transcripts, instead only being identifiable by their pseudonyms. Again, all transcripts had any identifiable information removed and this was made explicit to participants in order to allay any doubts they potentially