MSc Clinical and Health Psychology

For entry in the academic year beginning September 2027, the tuition fees are as follows:

• MSc (full-time)
  UK students (per annum): £13,800
  International, including EU, students (per annum): £35,300

The fees quoted above are fully inclusive of tuition, administration and computational costs.

Fees for entry are subject to yearly review. The University reserves the right to increase your tuition fee by up to 7% each year for courses lasting more than one year, including to reflect rising costs associated with delivering our educational and wider student experience. Postgraduate fees information .

Always contact the admissions team if you are unsure which fee applies to your qualification award and method of attendance.

International student CAS deposit

Self-funded international applicants are required to pay a deposit of £2500 towards their tuition fees before a confirmation of acceptance for studies (CAS) is issued. Some applicants will be required to pay a higher deposit. More information on tuition fee deposits .

All students should normally be able to complete their programme of study without incurring additional study costs over and above the tuition fee for that programme. Any unavoidable additional compulsory costs totalling more than 1% of the annual home undergraduate fee per annum, regardless of whether the programme in question is undergraduate or postgraduate taught, will be made clear to you at the point of application. Further information can be found in the University's Policy on additional costs incurred by students on undergraduate and postgraduate taught programmes (PDF document, 91KB).

For the latest scholarship and bursary information please visit the fees and funding page.

This unit provides a scaffold which is applicable and transferrable to other units on the programme. Skill development will focus on:

• advancing the understanding and critical evaluation of both traditional and contemporary research designs, starting with critical evaluation of our own research skills and research projects
• how to formulate meaningful research questions which form the basis of research that is vital to the ‘real world’ of mental and physical health
• designing quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research with a view to honing convergent approaches to research work
• an understanding of numerous data generation methods and how these can be used together to maximise our understanding
• a critically evaluative understanding of the underpinnings and processes of evidence generation, and evidence interpretation
• an examination of mental health services in the 'real world' exploring if they deliver, and if so why and how  
• the importance of the role of Experts-By-Experience and stake-holder involvement in all aspects of the research process including sensitive and inclusive ‘dissemination’ practices and platforms
• an awareness of the how language used in clinical and health psychology can act to reinforce stigma across numerous levels (individual, institutions, communities, society more generally) 

The unit aims to:

Provide an understanding of the psychological sciences research process with an emphasis on developing five Pedagogical Pillars and four Principles of Research Knowledge Questions.

1. Five Pedagogical Pillars:
2. Critical Evaluation and the binary non-binary thinking continuum
3. Stake-holder/EBE involvement
4. Convergent qualitative and quantitative methods
5. Work in the 'real world'
6. MAD: Making a Difference (Impact)

Four Principles of Research Knowledge Questions

1. What is research knowledge and who can “make research”?
2. How do we know what research knowledge we need, and need to change?
3. How can we evaluate and trust research knowledge?
4. What can be done with research knowledge that we trust?  

By the end of this course, students will be able to:

• Understand myriad issues related to data generation, evidence interpretation, and the trustworthiness of data and evidence.
• Develop a high level of ability in the understanding and critical evaluation of information from numerous sources including their own research skills, published research (e.g., academic publications, Department of Health reports), and the media
• Understand the research process including the vital role of multiple stake-holders such as Experts-By-Experience on that process.
• Understand ways of understanding and evaluating the evidence-base underpinning health and mental health service resources.
• Be able to develop a research question and appropriate study design
• Understand how to develop and apply convergent methods in clinical and health psychology research.
• Understand the need to be sensitive to the language used in clinical and health psychology. 

Teaching will be delivered in weekly sessions in predominantly interactive, informal, formats. Online platforms will be used to facilitate online discussion of material and to present resources such as PowerPoint materials, videos, blogs, quizzes, and reading lists.  

Assessment task	Length	Weighting within unit (if relevant)
Online quiz assessing basic statistical and methodological skills	N/A	(Formative)
Open book exam in the form of a critical evaluative assignment, involving critical evaluation skills and creative research methodological and convergent design and analysis skills.  There will be three parts to the assignment:  A - Discuss ways in which Generative AI (GenAI) could be used as ‘an assistant’, in accord with Manchester University guidelines about GenAI, to help you with the evaluative aspects of this assignment. [250 words] B) B - Critically evaluate an extended essay, including suggestions for further research. [1500 words]  C - Discuss your reflections about your use of Generative AI (GenAI) for this assignment. [250 words] The length of time to complete the assignment will be 5 days in the semester 1 January exam		100% This paper has one question, with three components of Component A (10%), Component B (80%), and Component C (10%). You must answer all three components. In order to pass this assignment your mark for component B must exceed 50% i.e., 40/80.

• Baker, A. L., Thornton, L. K., Hides, L., & Dunlop, A. (2012). Treatment of Cannabis Use Among People with Psychotic Disorders: A Critical Review of Randomised Controlled Trials. Current Pharmaceutical Design, 18(32), 4923-4937.
• Bishop, F. L. (2015). Using mixed methods research designs in health psychology: An illustrated discussion from a pragmatist perspective. British Journal of Health Psychology, 20(1), 5-20. doi: 10.1111/bjhp.12122
• Brown, A. C., Dhingra, K., Brown, T. D., Danquah, A. N., & Taylor, P. J. (2022). A systematic review of the relationship between momentary emotional states and nonsuicidal self-injurious thoughts and behaviours. Psychology and Psychotherapy-Theory Research and Practice, 95(3), 754-780. https://doi.org/10.1111/papt.12397
• de Visser, R. O., Graber, R., Hart, A., Abraham, C., Scanlon, T., Watten, P., & Memon, A. (2015). Using qualitative methods within a mixed-methods approach to developing and evaluating interventions to address harmful alcohol use among young people. Health Psychology: official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association, 34(4), 349-360. doi: 10.1037/hea0000163
• Farris, K. B., Aquilino, M. L., Batra, P., Marshall, V., & Losch, M. E. (2015). Impact of a passive social marketing intervention in community pharmacies on oral contraceptive and condom sales: a quasi-experimental study. BMC Public Health, 15, 1495-1495. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-1495-x
• Harrits, G. S. (2011). More Than Method? A Discussion of Paradigm Differences Within mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5 (2), 150-166. Doi:10.1177/1558689811402506
• Hong, Q. N., Pluye, P., Bujold, M., & Wassef, M. (2017). Convergent and sequential synthesis designs: implications for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence. Systematic Reviews, 6(1), 61. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0454-2
• Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D. A., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A. (2004). A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: the day reconstruction method. Science, 306(5702), 1776-1780. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1103572
• Lee, C., & Rowlands, I. J. (2015). When mixed methods produce mixed results: Integrating disparate findings about miscarriage and women’s wellbeing. British Journal of Health Psychology, 20(1), 36-44. doi: 10.1111/bjhp.12121
• Moseholm, E., & Fetters, M. (2017). Conceptual models to guide integration during analysis in convergent mixed methods studies. Methodological Innovations, 10, 205979911770311. https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799117703118
• Sumner, K., Haddock, G., Hartley, S., Kilbride, M., McCusker, M., Pitt, L., ...Barrowclough, C. (2014). Preferences for psychological therapy in psychosis: trial participation, mode of treatment, and willingness to be randomised. Journal of Mental Health, 23(2), 67-71. doi: 10.3109/09638237.2013.841865
• Shaughnessy, J., Zechmeister, E. B., & Zechmeister, J. S. (2014). Research Methods in Psychology. US: McGraw-Hill.