Involving Caregivers of Older People in Qualitative Evaluation Research: Examining the “Caregiver Support Project” in Hong Kong

Abstract

Purpose: This article explores the growing involvement of service users in evaluation research, specifically examining the “Caregiver Support Project” (The Project) designed to assist informal caregivers of frail older adults in Hong Kong. It highlights the essential role and best practices of engaging service users in evaluating the program. Method: A qualitative design was employed, involving two groups of service users: the intervention group and a control group, with a total of 32 service users interviewed (16 from each group). Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. Results: The findings emphasize the importance of integrating service user perspectives to improve the quality and effectiveness of caregiver support services. Discussion: This article enhances understanding of service user involvement in evaluation research and advocates for a cocreation model that promotes continuous improvement in social work practices.

Keywords

service user involvement caregiver support evaluation research case study Hong Kong

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Beresford

(2002). User involvement in research and evaluation: Liberation or regulation? Social Policy and Society, 1(2), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746402000222

Beresford

(2005a). Developing the theoretical basis for service user/survivor-led research and equal involvement in research. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 14(1), 4–9. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1121189x0000186x

Beresford

(2005b). Theory and practice of user involvement in research: Making the connection with public policy and practice. In Lowes

Hulatt

(Eds.), Involving service users in health and social care research (pp. 6–17). Routledge.

Beresford

(2013). From ‘other’ to involved: User involvement in research: An emerging paradigm. Nordic Social Work Research, 3(2), 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/2156857X.2013.835138

Beresford

Croft

(2004). Service users and practitioners reunited: The key component for social work reform. British Journal of Social Work, 34(1), 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bch005

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Callard

Rose

(2012). The mental health strategy for Europe: Why service user leadership in research is indispensable. Journal of Mental Health, 21(3), 219–226. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638237.2011.651661

Census and Statistics Department, HKSAR Government. (2021). Social data collected via the General Household Survey: Special topics report — Report No. 63 — Persons with disabilities and chronic diseases. https://www.censtatd.gov.hk/en/data/stat_report/product/C0000055/att/B11301632021XXXXB0100.pdf

Chemali

Borba

C. P.

Johnson

Khair

Fricchione

G. L.

(2018). Needs assessment with elder Syrian refugees in Lebanon: Implications for services and interventions. Global Public Health, 13(9), 1216–1228. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2017.1373838

10.

Choi

Reblin

Litzelman

(2024). Conceptualizing family caregivers’ use of community support services: A scoping review. The Gerontologist, 64(5), gnad039. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnad039

11.

Chui

(2008). Ageing in place in Hong Kong—Challenges and opportunities in a capitalist Chinese city. Ageing International, 32(3), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12126-008-9012-4

12.

Connell

J. P.

Kubisch

A. C.

(1998). Applying a theory of change approach to the evaluation of comprehensive community initiatives: Progress, prospects, and problems. In Fulbright-Anderson

Kubisch

A. C.

Connell

J. P.

(Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives (Vol. 2, pp. 15–44). The Aspen Institute.

13.

De Silva

M. J.

Breuer

Lee

Asher

Chowdhary

Lund

Patel

(2014). Theory of change: A theory-driven approach to enhance the Medical Research Council's framework for complex interventions. Trials, 15, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-267

14.

Drisko

J. W.

Grady

M. D.

(2015). Evidence-based practice in social work: A contemporary perspective. Clinical Social Work Journal, 43, 274–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-015-0548-z

15.

Foster

M. L.

Egwuonwu

Vernon

Alarifi

Hughes

M. C.

(2025). Informal caregivers connecting on the web: Content analysis of posts on discussion forums. JMIR Formative Research, 9(1), e64757. https://doi.org/10.2196/64757

16.

Fung

K. Y.

Chan

W. S.

(2025). Building a social support network for informal caregivers of older adults: A case study of Carer Cafés in Hong Kong. Journal of Aging Studies, 72, 101310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2025.101310

17.

Gérain

Zech

(2019). Informal caregiver burnout? Development of a theoretical framework to understand the impact of caregiving. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1748. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01748

18.

Ghate

(2018). Developing theories of change for social programmes: Co-producing evidence-supported quality improvement. Palgrave Communications, 4(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0139-z

19.

Golightley

Holloway

(2018). Editorial: The voice of the service user. The British Journal of Social Work, 48(6), 1503–1507. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcy087

20.

Hong Kong Polytechnic University Consulting Team [PolyU]. (2022). Consultancy study on needs and support required of carers of elderly persons and of persons with disabilities in Hong Kong: Main report. https://www.lwb.gov.hk/en/other_info/1.%20Carer%20Study-Main%20Report%20(Eng)_2022.05-r.pdf

21.

Hughson

(2020). Evaluation research in social programmes: The centrality of families. In Making a difference in families (pp. 171–192). Routledge.

22.

Humphreys

(2005). Service user involvement in social work education: A case example. Social Work Education, 24(7), 797–803. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615470500238710

23.

Kendall

(2008). The conduct of qualitative interviews: Research questions, methodological issues, and researching online. In Coiro

Knobel

Lankshear

Leu

D. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 133–149). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

24.

Krumpal

(2013). Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: A literature review. Quality & Quantity, 47(4), 2025–2047. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9640-9

25.

Kvarnström

Hedberg

Cedersund

(2013). The dual faces of service user participation: Implications for empowerment processes in interprofessional practice. Journal of Social Work, 13(3), 287–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017311433234

26.

Laging

Heidenreich

(2019). Towards a conceptual framework of service user involvement in social work education: Empowerment and educational perspectives. Journal of Social Work Education, 55(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2018.1498417

27.

K. K.

Leung

C. L.

Yeung

Chiu

M. Y.

Chong

A. M.

Lam

B. C.

Chung

E. K. H.

T. W.

(2023). Development and validation of the caregiver needs and resources assessment. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1063440. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1063440

28.

S. K. W.

(2022). Informal carers in Hong Kong: A review and an agenda for policy development. The Hong Kong Journal of Social Work, 56(01n02), 135–161. https://www.worldscientific.com/toc/hkjsw/56/01n02

29.

Martínez-Melero

Ruiz-García

M. J.

Ruiz-Merino

García-Rubio

(2025). Impact of a community-based educational intervention on the burden and health-related quality of life of informal caregivers. Geriatric Nursing, 65, 103513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gerinurse.2025.103513

30.

McLaughlin

(2010). Keeping service user involvement in research honest. British Journal of Social Work, 40(5), 1591–1608. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcp064

31.

McLaughlin

(2012). Understanding social work research (2nd ed.). Sage.

32.

Ming

Heung

Azenkot

Vashistha

(2021, October). Accept or address? Researchers’ perspectives on response bias in accessibility research. Proceedings of the 23rd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (pp. 1–13).

33.

Morrow

Ross

Grocott

Bennett

(2010). A model and measure for quality service user involvement in health research. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 34(5), 532–539. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00901.x

34.

Murphy

(2007). User involvement in evaluations. In Innes

McCabe

(Eds.), Evaluation in dementia care (pp. 214–233). Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

35.

Muurinen

(2019). Service-user participation in developing social services: Applying the experiment-driven approach. European Journal of Social Work, 22(6), 961–973. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2018.1461071

36.

Müller

Pihl-Thingvad

(2020). User involvement in social work innovation: A systematic and narrative review. Journal of Social Work, 20(6), 730–750. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017319837519

37.

Orne

M. T.

(1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17(11), 776–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043424

38.

Osher

T. W.

Osher

D. M.

(2002). The paradigm shift to true collaboration with families. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11, 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014715527823

39.

Powell

R. R.

(2006). Evaluation research: An overview. Library Trends, 55(1), 102–120. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2006.0050

40.

Reid

W. J.

(1979). Evaluation research in social work. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2(3), 209–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(79)90095-8

41.

Report of the Committee on Local Authority and Allied Personal Social Services. (1968). The Seebohm Report (Cmnd. 3703). HLG 120/1282. https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C6001035

42.

Skerrett

(2000). Social work—A shifting paradigm. Journal of Social Work Practice, 14(1), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650530050043746

43.

Tanner

Littlechild

Duffy

Hayes

(2017). ‘Making it real’: Evaluating the impact of service user and carer involvement in social work education. British Journal of Social Work, 47(2), 467–486. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcv121

44.

Toikko

(2016). Becoming an expert by experience: An analysis of service users’ learning process. Social Work in Mental Health, 14(3), 292–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332985.2015.1038411

45.

Wallcraft

J. A. N.

Amering

Freidin

Davar

Froggatt

Jafri

Javed

Katontoka

Raja

Rataemane

Steffen

Tyano

Underhill

Wahlberg

Warner

Herrman

(2011). Partnerships for better mental health worldwide: WPA recommendations on best practices in working with service users and family carers. World Psychiatry, 10(3), 229–236. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2051-5545.2011.tb00062.x

46.

Weiss

C. H.

(1995). Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In Connell

Kubisch

Schorr

Weiss

(Eds.), New approaches to evaluating comprehensive community initiatives (pp. 65–92). The Aspen Roundtable Institute.

47.

Westerling

Hellgren

Hermansson

Strid

E. N.

(2024). Informal caregivers’ experiences of support from a tailored primary healthcare unit for older adults: A focus group study. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 38(3), 730–744. https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.13245

48.

Yuan

Zhang

Wang

Xia

(2025). Supporting informal dementia caregivers through an iSupport web-based primary health care intervention: Hybrid effectiveness-implementation mixed methods study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27, e77688. https://doi.org/10.2196/77688