Psychotic major depression (PMD) data

<b>Aim</b>Although there are multiple theories as to why PMD is diagnosed late, this has not been fully investigated. Therefore, this study aimed to explore service users’ perspectives and experiences of their diagnosis of PMD, with a focus on exploring instances where the diagnosis was made later in the illness course.<br><b>Materials and methods</b>We followed COREQ reporting guidelines for qualitative research.<br><b>Design</b>This study used qualitative methods to explore the diagnostic process of PMD from the service users' subjective views, experiences, and opinions. Semi-structured one-off interviews were conducted with people who had a formal diagnosis of PMD according to medical records.<br><b>Participants</b>Purposive sampling was used to recruit a sample of service users between 18-64, who did not need a translator to participate, who had a formal recorded clinical diagnosis of PMD in the last 3 years, and did not have a different psychosis related diagnosis since then.<br><b>Recruitment</b>Participants were recruited using two methods: consent for contact (C4C); and referrals from clinical teams. C4C was conducted through a research register held by the NHR Maudsley biomedical research centre (BRC) partnered with the south London and Maudsley NHS foundation trust (SLaM). Participants are added to the C4C register when in the care of SLaM and having consented to being contacted regarding research. The study's inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to complete a C4C search, creating a list of potential participants. Eligible participants were then contacted.<br>Relevant clinical teams within SLAM were contacted with details of the study and asked to refer any potentially relevant service users who were interested in receiving more information about the study. Any referrals were contact directly.<br>All potentially relevant service users were contacted by phone and given brief information about the study. If the person was interested, they were sent a participant information sheet and given at least 24 hours to consider before being recontacted by the researcher. Verbal informed consent was obtained from each service user after a full explanation of the participant information sheet. The audio recording of informed consent was listened to by another researcher who then signed the consent form to confirm consent had been given.<br><b>Data Collection</b>Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, interviews were conducted through Microsoft teams via videoconferencing or freephone options. Following the recruitment and consent procedure, interviews were conducted, audio or video recorded with the video removed post-interview. We requested that service users made sure they were in a quiet space and alone during interviews. Interviews lasted approximately 1 hour. Data collection started in 13/06/2022 and ended on 10/08/2023.<br>Open-ended, in-depth questions were used to reduce bias and increase rapport. This was facilitated by the use of a topic guide. The questions explored the individual's journey to diagnosis, factors that helped and hindered diagnosis and their interactions with mental health services. A debrief sheet and £20 Amazon voucher was emailed post-interview.Transcription was completed verbatim within the Microsoft teams' transcription tool, which was then confirmed and anonymised by the researcher. No field notes were made. Transcripts were not returned to service users for comment.<br><b>Ethics</b>Ethical approval was provided by Oxford REC and has received HRA and HCRW approval – 287774. Participants provided verbal informed consent.<br><b>Data analysis</b>Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Data was coded using NVivo 14. The six thematic analysis steps were followed: (1) familiarisation with the data, through repeated reading &amp; annotation; (2) generation of initial codes, through intense open-coding of data to generate an initial coding frame based on thematic categories rooted in the data; (3) identification of themes, through a detailed review of the coding frame to sort codes in to potential themes; (4) review of themes, through refinement of the developing themes; (5) definition &amp; refinement of themes, through exploration of relationships within &amp; between codes, &amp; revision of thematic definitions, and (6) writing up the study findings. Steps 1-3 were performed independently by two authors (EL &amp; MH) who then performed steps 4-6 collaboratively with NVSJ. Data saturation was not considered.<br><b>Reflexivity</b>EL conducted all interviews. EL is a female, White British Masters’ student with a BSc in Psychology. In preparation for this study, EL completed training in: good clinical practice; gaining informed consent; safeguarding; GDPR; information governance; Nvivo; C4C guidelines; completed a master’s module in qualitative research; and took part in several role play interviews. EL previous conducted research interviews for her BSc. EL was responsible for approaching and recruiting all service users. NVSJ is a female, Latina of mixed ethnic background, Senior Research Fellow. MH is a White British female Senior Lecturer.During analysis, MH and NVSJ had reflective sessions where we discussed emerging themes, and different interpretations of the data.<br><b>Content</b>Data include the 10 transcripts from participant one-to-one interviews.

<b>研究目的</b>虽然目前已有多种关于PMD诊断延迟的理论假说，但相关研究尚未得到充分探索。因此，本研究旨在探讨服务使用者对PMD诊断的看法与经历，重点关注疾病病程后期才作出诊断的案例。
<b>材料与方法</b>本研究遵循定性研究的COREQ报告规范。
<b>研究设计</b>本研究采用定性研究方法，从服务使用者的主观视角、经历与观点出发，探讨PMD的诊断过程。研究人员对符合医疗记录中正式PMD诊断标准的人群开展半结构化单次访谈。
<b>研究对象</b>本研究采用目的抽样法，招募年龄在18至64岁之间、无需翻译即可参与研究、近3年内有正式书面临床PMD诊断且此后未罹患其他精神病性相关诊断的服务使用者。
<b>招募流程</b>研究采用两种方式招募参与者：接触同意（C4C）登记法，以及临床团队转介。C4C登记由NHR莫兹利生物医学研究中心（BRC）与南伦敦与莫兹利国民保健信托基金会（SLaM）联合维护的研究登记库开展。当服务使用者在SLaM接受护理且同意参与研究相关接触时，即可被纳入C4C登记库。研究人员利用本研究的纳入与排除标准对C4C登记库进行筛选，生成潜在参与者名单，随后联系符合条件的对象。
研究人员还联系了SLaM内部的相关临床团队，向其介绍研究细节，请求其转介所有可能符合条件且愿意了解研究更多信息的服务使用者，所有转介对象均由研究人员直接联系。
所有潜在服务使用者均通过电话联系，并获知了研究的简要信息。若对象表示感兴趣，则向其发送研究参与者信息表，并给予至少24小时的考虑时间，之后研究人员将再次联系该对象。在完整解释参与者信息表后，从每位服务使用者处获取口头知情同意。知情同意的录音将由另一名研究人员聆听，随后签署同意书以确认同意已有效获取。
<b>数据收集</b>受COVID-19疫情影响，访谈通过Microsoft Teams以视频会议或免费电话方式开展。在完成招募与知情同意流程后，开展访谈并进行音视频录制，访谈结束后移除视频内容。研究人员要求服务使用者在访谈期间处于安静且独处的环境中，每次访谈时长约1小时。数据收集始于2022年6月13日，截至2023年8月10日。
研究采用开放式、深入性问题以减少偏倚并增强融洽关系，这一过程通过主题访谈指南得以实现。访谈问题涵盖参与者的诊断历程、助力与阻碍诊断的相关因素，以及其与精神卫生服务的互动情况。访谈结束后，研究人员将通过电子邮件发送访谈反馈表与20英镑Amazon礼品券。
转录工作通过Microsoft Teams的转录工具逐字完成，随后由研究人员进行确认与匿名化处理，未撰写实地笔记。转录稿未返还给服务使用者征求意见。
<b>伦理审查</b>本研究已获得牛津研究伦理委员会（Oxford REC）的伦理批准，并获取了健康研究管理局（HRA）与健康护理研究委员会（HCRW）的批准，批准编号为287774。参与者均提供了口头知情同意。
<b>数据分析</b>本研究采用反思性主题分析法对数据进行分析，使用NVivo 14进行编码。研究遵循主题分析的六个步骤：（1）熟悉数据：通过反复阅读与标注实现；（2）生成初始编码：对数据进行深入开放式编码，基于数据衍生的主题类别生成初始编码框架；（3）识别主题：详细审查编码框架，将编码归类为潜在主题；（4）审查主题：对逐步形成的主题进行细化；（5）定义与优化主题：探索编码内部及编码之间的关联，修订主题定义；（6）撰写研究结果。步骤1至3由两名作者（EL与MH）独立完成，随后步骤4至6由三人与NVSJ协作完成。本研究未考虑数据饱和问题。
<b>反思性说明</b>所有访谈均由EL开展。EL为英国白人女性硕士研究生，拥有心理学理学学士学位。为开展本研究，EL完成了以下培训：良好临床实践、受试者保护、通用数据保护条例（GDPR）、信息治理、NVivo使用、C4C指南，并修读了定性研究硕士模块，还参与了多次模拟访谈。EL此前曾为其理学学士学位开展过研究访谈。EL负责联系并招募所有服务使用者。NVSJ为拉丁裔混血女性高级研究员。MH为英国白人女性高级讲师。在分析阶段，MH与NVSJ开展了反思性会议，讨论逐步浮现的主题以及对数据的不同解读。
<b>数据集内容</b>本数据集包含10份参与者一对一访谈的转录稿。