Two continuous professional development (CPD) modules in substance misuse (SM) and dual diagnosis (DD) (those with a mental health and a substance misuse problem) began to take post-registration nursing students from 2003/4 at the University of Manchester School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work (UMSNMSW). Both modules can be taken towards obtaining a degree in Nursing or Professional Practice. This meant that by the time the research started in 2010 there were substantial numbers of students who had experiences of either one or both of the modules. In order to enrich the data the views of students over the lifespan of the modules were sought. Ethical approval was first sought and gained from both institutions (Manchester Metropolitan University and the University of Manchester) before letters asking if they would like to participate in the study were sent out to the students (see appendix 6). Then the same letters were sent out in September 2010 to 56 former SM and DD students. Some students were not contacted because they were not living in the UK or lived too far away to easily get to the university. All letters included an information sheet outlining the research proposal and a consent form.
Four students replied stating that would be willing to engage with the research project, a number I was disappointed with. Three of these students were white, Caucasian women between the ages of 22 and 38 and one black, African man aged 37. I would have probably received a better response if I had stated in their invitation letter that I would be willing to speak to them in or near their homes but a lack of time and
99
money to arrange this (some of the potential participants lived in different parts of the country) made this option unrealistic. I could have used online interviewing via email to overcome this problem but I lacked experience in this form of interviewing and there is also the disadvantage of not being able to pick up nonverbal cues compared to face-to-face interviewing. Arrangements were therefore made to interview them individually, for approximately one hour in the UMSNMSW using a list of questions I had prepared earlier (see appendix 4). Three more students replied saying they would have liked to be involved but could not due to other commitments. Why the majority of those contacted did not reply is hard to say. I wrote to them irrespective of the mark they received for the module(s) they attended. Students who received a lower mark than they expected may have felt uncomfortable or possibly resentful undertaking an interview with me, as I was the one who had marked their assignments. Other reasons for nonparticipation could include an unwillingness to be involved in research in the first place. The UMNMSW building where the research was to be conducted might also have negative associations for some of them.
Three male and three female students, age range 21-46 who had applied to be part of the February 2011 substance misuse cohortwere contacted and all agreed to be interviewed. Arrangements were made to interview them individually for approximately the same time (one hour), asking the same set of questions, at the same venue (see appendix 4). The final number interviewed was ten students. Six were from the current cohort plus the four students who had agreed to participate from previous cohorts. Four of these 10 students had attended both SM and DD units, three of whom were current students. All of the students interviewed were qualified
100
nurses. Three of the students from the 2008 and 2009 cohorts who had agreed to participate were still undertaking studies towards their degree, which might explain their decision to join the research. The final sample size of 10 students was chosen on the basis of reading from the established research literature combined with discussion with others. I also gave some thought to whether this number would more than likely lead to no new information emerging concerning the issues raised by the research questions emerging (so called ‘saturation’), especially if it contained students (which it did) who had completed the units in the recent past.
Of the 10 students interviewed seven were women with an average age of 35.1 years (see appendix 11). Five were mental health nurses and two were trained to be adult (general) nurses. The youngest had 3 years’ experience as a qualified nurse and the oldest 24 years. The three men interviewed had an average age of 38.3 years and their experience as trained nurses varied from 5 years to 9 years. At the time of interview, four women had completed both the SM and DD modules between two and six years ago. Three men had already completed the DD module when interviewed and all were currently students on their second.
Eight of the 10 students who were interviewed were qualified, mental health trained nurses, four of whom were working on mental health wards in NHS hospitals at the time of the interviews. Three of these were males, two of whom were working on Psychiatric Intensive Care Units (PICU’s) where health service users were often acutely ill. The third male mental health nurse was working nights on an acute ward for mental health problems. The other two adult trained nurses were female and working in accident and emergency departments.
101