Search

Introduction: Co‐production is gaining increasing recognition as a good way of facilitating collaboration among different stakeholders, including members of the public. However, it remains an ambiguous concept as there is no definitive or universal model of co‐production or clarity on what constitutes a good co‐production approach. This paper draws on the reflections of the academic researchers, practitioners and public advisors involved in co‐producing a priority‐setting exercise. The exercise was conducted by the Primary and Community Health Services (PCHS) Theme of the National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration for Kent, Surrey and Sussex (NIHR ARC KSS). Methods: We collected data through written and verbal reflections from seven collaborators involved in the PCHS priority‐setting exercise. We used Gibbs' model of reflection to guide the data collection. We then analysed the data through an inductive, reflexive thematic analysis. Results: A common thread through our reflections was the concept of 'sharing'. Although co‐production is inherently shared, we used the virtuous cycle to illustrate a sequence of sharing concepts during the research cycle, which provides the underpinnings of positive co‐production outcomes. We identified six themes to denote the iterative process of a shared approach within the virtuous cycle: shared values, shared understanding, shared power, shared responsibilities, shared ownership and positive outcomes. Conclusion: Our results present a virtuous cycle of co‐production, which furthers the conceptual underpinnings of co‐production. Through our reflections, we propose that positive co‐production outcomes require foundations of shared values and a shared understanding of co‐production as a concept. These foundations facilitate a process of shared power, shared responsibilities and shared ownership. We argue that when these elements are present in a co‐production exercise, there is a greater potential for implementable outcomes in the communities in which the research serves and the empowerment of collaborators involved in the co‐production process. Public Members' Contributions: Three members of the public who are public advisors in the NIHR ARC KSS were involved in the priority‐setting exercise that informed this paper. The public advisors were involved in the design of the priority‐setting exercise and supported participants' recruitment. They also co‐facilitated the focus groups during data collection and were involved in the data analysis, interpretation and preparation of the priority‐setting report. For this current manuscript, two of them are co‐authors. They provided reflections and contributed to the writing and reviewing of this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the methodological aspects of a user‐led study investigating mental health service user experiences of targeted violence and abuse (often called 'hate crime'). 'Keeping Control' was a 16‐month qualitative study, undertaken in the context of adult safeguarding reforms in England. By collecting data on service user concepts and experiences, the research sought to address a gap in research and practice knowledge relating to targeted violence, abuse and hostility against people with mental health problems. In this paper, we discuss the significance of the design and methodology used for this study, with a particular focus on the interviews with service users. The research was both user‐led and carried out in collaboration with practitioners and academics, a form of research co‐production. Our aim is to inform researchers, practitioners and policymakers about the value of user leadership in co‐productive research with practitioners, particularly for a highly sensitive and potentially distressing topic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is limited evidence of genuine equal partnership where power is shared with young people with mental health difficulties throughout all research stages, particularly in data collection and analysis. Objective: To describe how our qualitative study, exploring young peoples' perceptions on the feasibility of using technology to detect mental health deterioration, was co‐produced using principles of co‐production, whilst reflecting on impact, challenges and recommendations. Methods: Young people with experience of mental health difficulties were appointed and then worked with researchers throughout all research stages. The study was evaluated against the five principles of co‐production. Reflections from researchers and young people were collected throughout. Results: Seven young people formed an initial Young People's Advisory Group (YPAG); three became co‐researchers. Reflection was key throughout the process. Sharing power became easier and more evident as trust, confidence and mutual respect grew over time, particularly after a safe space was established. The safe space was crucial for open discussions, and our WhatsApp group enabled continual communication, support and shared decision‐making. The resulting co‐produced topic guide, coding framework, thematic map, papers and presentations demonstrated significant impact. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first qualitative mental health study to be co‐produced using the principles of co‐production. Our rigorous assessment can be utilized as an informative document to help others to produce meaningful co‐produced future research. Although co‐production takes time, it makes significant impact to the research, researchers and co‐researchers. Flexible funding for spontaneous suggestions from co‐researchers and more time for interview training is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient and public involvement and co‐production are widely used, but nevertheless contested concepts in applied health research. There is much confusion about what they are, how they might be undertaken and how they relate to each other. There are distinct challenges and particular gaps in public involvement in alcohol research, especially when the study focus is on health matters other than alcohol dependence. Objective: To explore how patient and public involvement and co‐production have been interpreted and applied within a multi‐disciplinary research programme in the development of a complex intervention on alcohol and medicine use in community pharmacies. Design: The paper presents the authors' critical reflection on a grounded example of how public involvement concepts have been translated into practice in the intervention development phase of a publicly funded research programme, noting its impact on the programme to date. Discussion: Co‐production adds another layer of complexity in the development of a complex intervention. The research planning requirements for publicly funded research circumscribe the possibilities for co‐production, including impacting on the possibility of stability and continuity over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: The 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children have the right to be heard in all matters affecting them. The Convention inspired a surge in research that investigates young people's perspectives on health and wellness‐related concerns and that involves children as 'co‐researchers'. Young people's advisory groups (YPAGs) are a widely used method to enable young people's involvement in all research stages, but there is a lack of academic literature to guide researchers on how to set up, run and evaluate the impact of such groups. Objective: In this paper, we provide a step‐by‐step model, grounded in our own experience of setting up and coordinating the Oxford Neuroscience, Ethics and Society Young People's Advisory Group (NeurOx YPAG). This group supports studies at the intersection of ethics, mental health and novel technologies. Our model covers the following stages: deciding on the fit for co‐production, recruiting participants, developing collective principles of work, running a meeting and evaluating impact. Results: We emphasize that throughout this process, researchers should take a critical stance by reflecting on whether a co‐production model fits their research scope and aims; ensuring (or aspiring to) representativeness within the group; valuing different kinds of expertise; and undertaking on‐going evaluations on the impact of the group on both the young people and the research. Conclusion: Adopting a critical and reflective attitude can increase researchers' capacity to engage youth in democratic and inclusive ways, and to produce research outputs that are aligned with the target audience's needs and priorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]