Understanding research practices and methodological choices when applying the Person-Based Approach to health intervention development: A qualitative interview study
- 1NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Evaluation and Behavioural Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- 2Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- 3Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, School of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
Abstract
Objective: This study explores why researchers selected the Person-Based Approach (PBA) to intervention development for their studies and their perceptions of the strengths and limitations of using the approach in practice.
Design: This is a qualitative interview study, which uses an Interpretive Description approach to thematically analyse data.
Setting: The participants were based at academic institutions across the UK, Europe and North America.
Participants: We interviewed 16 health researchers at different academic career stages, including clinicians, psychologists and social scientists.
Results: Three main themes were chosen to characterise and describe the data: Navigation (the PBA provided guidance throughout key development phases, and a clear audit-trail of research decisions); Flexibility (the PBA enabled study teams to make resource-responsive adaptations to their research methods, while maintaining the core principle of user focus) and Integration (the PBA facilitated the synthesis of diverse evidence sources and the combination of different development methodologies/frameworks).
Conclusions: Using the PBA gave researchers the confidence to adapt their research activities, particularly patient and public involvement and qualitative methods, to better reach target users. They selected the PBA not purely on instrumental grounds, but because it aligned with their professional values and commitment to user-centred practice. The PBA also facilitated the integration of multiple evidence sources and development frameworks. Understanding whether these diverse methodological configurations lead to successful outcomes will require evaluation approaches that can accommodate complexity and pluralism, alongside transparent reporting of the choices made.
Related
- Empowerment, satisfaction, and family quality of life in early intervention: A qualitative study of professional practices received
- Focused ethnography protocol for exploring burn pain management practices in clinical settings: methodological considerations and implementation framework.
- Understanding rhythmic behavior in infancy: Perspectives for addressing developmental, methodological, and analytical challenges
- Qualitative content analysis vs reflexive thematic analysis: methodological comparison and key procedures for data analysis
- Mapping the methodological framework of diabetic retinopathy interventional trials: a scoping review on trial design, execution, and reporting practices
BibTeX
@article{holt2026understanding,
title = {{Understanding research practices and methodological choices when applying the Person-Based Approach to health intervention development: A qualitative interview study}},
author = {Lydia Holt and Sarah Denford and Lucy Yardley},
journal = {BMJ Open},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1136/bmjopen-2025-112780},
url = {https://bmjopen.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2025-112780},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Understanding research practices and methodological choices when applying the Person-Based Approach to health intervention development: A qualitative interview study
AU - Lydia Holt
AU - Sarah Denford
AU - Lucy Yardley
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/07
JO - BMJ Open
DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2025-112780
UR - https://bmjopen.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2025-112780
AB - Objective: This study explores why researchers selected the Person-Based Approach (PBA) to intervention development for their studies and their perceptions of the strengths and limitations of using the approach in practice. Design: This is a qualitative interview study, which uses an Interpretive Description approach to thematically analyse data. Setting: The participants were based at academic institutions across the UK, Europe and North America. Participants: We interviewed 16 health researchers at different academic career stages, including clinicians, psychologists and social scientists. Results: Three main themes were chosen to characterise and describe the data: Navigation (the PBA provided guidance throughout key development phases, and a clear audit-trail of research decisions); Flexibility (the PBA enabled study teams to make resource-responsive adaptations to their research methods, while maintaining the core principle of user focus) and Integration (the PBA facilitated the synthesis of diverse evidence sources and the combination of different development methodologies/frameworks). Conclusions: Using the PBA gave researchers the confidence to adapt their research activities, particularly patient and public involvement and qualitative methods, to better reach target users. They selected the PBA not purely on instrumental grounds, but because it aligned with their professional values and commitment to user-centred practice. The PBA also facilitated the integration of multiple evidence sources and development frameworks. Understanding whether these diverse methodological configurations lead to successful outcomes will require evaluation approaches that can accommodate complexity and pluralism, alongside transparent reporting of the choices made.
SN - 2044-6055
SN - 2044-6055
ER -