Search

Background: In the context of mental health research, co-production involves people with lived expertise, those with professional or academic expertise, and people with both of these perspectives collaborating to design and actualize research initiatives. In the literature, two dominant perspectives on co-production emerge. The first is in support of co-production, pointing to the transformative value of co-production for those involved, the quality of services developed through this process, as well as to broader system-level impacts (e.g. influencing changes in health system decision making, care practices, government policies, etc.). The second stance expresses scepticism about the capacity of co-production to engender genuine collaboration given the deeply ingrained power imbalances in the systems in which we operate. While some scholars have explored the intersections of these two perspectives, this body of literature remains limited. Main text: This paper contributes to the literature base by exploring the nuances of co-production in health research. Using our mental health participatory action research project as a case example, we explore the nuances of co-production through four key values that we embraced: Navigating power relations together Multi-directional learning Slow and steady wins the race Connecting through vulnerability Conclusions: By sharing these values and associated principles and practices, we invite readers to consider the complexities of co-production and explore how our experiences may inform their practice of co-production. Despite the inherent complexity of co-production, we contend that pursuing authentic and equitable collaborations is integral to shaping a more just and inclusive future in mental health research and the mental health system at large. Plain Language Summary: Background: In the context of mental health research, co-production is a process where people with lived experiences, those with academic or professional experience, and people with both of these perspectives collaborate to design and actualize research initiatives. In the literature, there are two main opinions about co-production. The first opinion is that co-production is beneficial for those involved, improves the quality of services, and can also have impacts at higher system levels (e.g. influencing changes in health system decision making, care practices, government policies, etc.). The second opinion is doubtful that co-production has the ability to foster authentic collaboration because of the differences in power between academic and health systems. Even though some scholars have looked at both opinions, there is not a lot of research on this. Main Text: This paper contributes to the literature base exploring the nuances of co-production in health research. Using our mental health participatory action research project as a case example, we explore the nuances of co-production through four key values that we embraced: Navigating power relations together Multi-directional learning Slow and steady wins the race Connecting through vulnerability Conclusions: By sharing these values and associated principles and practices, we invite readers to consider the complexities of co-production and explore how our process may inform their engagement with co-production. We argue that pursuing authentic collaborations is key to shaping a more just and inclusive future in mental health research and the mental health system at large. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Engaging people with lived experience of mental health system encounters in the design and actualization of continuing professional development initiatives for mental health professionals can have transformative systemic impacts. Yet, despite evidence that involving people with lived experience benefits mental health professional education, far less focus has been placed on how to engage people with lived experience in continuing professional development initiatives. Tensions persist regarding the role of lived experience perspectives in continuing professional development, as well as how to establish people with lived experience as partners, educators and leaders in a thoughtful way. We propose that meaningful and equitable partnerships with people with lived experience can be realized by engaging in critical reflexivity and by systematically challenging assumptions. This paper explores three topics: (1) the current state of engagement with people with lived experience in continuing professional development initiatives; (2) barriers to meaningful engagement and (3) recommendations for using critical reflexivity to support the involvement and leadership of people with lived experience in continuing professional development for mental health professionals. Patient or Public Involvement: This viewpoint manuscript was co‐designed and co‐written by people with diverse lived and learned experiences. Each author's professional roles involve meaningfully and equitably partnering with and centring the perspectives of those with lived experience of mental health system encounters. In addition, approximately half of the authorship team identifies as having lived experience of accessing the psychiatric system and/or supporting family members who are navigating challenges related to mental health. These lived and learned experiences informed the conception and writing of this article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recovery Colleges (RCs) are education-based centres providing information, networking, and skills development for managing mental health, well-being, and daily living. A central principle is co-creation involving people with lived experience of mental health/illness and/or addictions (MHA). Identified gaps are RCs evaluations and information about whether such evaluations are co-created. We describe a co-created scoping review of how RCs are evaluated in the published and grey literature. Also assessed were: the frameworks, designs, and analyses used; the themes/outcomes reported; the trustworthiness of the evidence; and whether the evaluations are co-created. We followed Arksey and O'Malley's methodology with one important modification: "Consultation" was re-conceptualised as "co-creator engagement" and was the first, foundational step rather than the last, optional one. Seventy-nine percent of the 43 included evaluations were peer-reviewed, 21% grey literature. These evaluations represented 33 RCs located in the UK (58%), Australia (15%), Canada (9%), Ireland (9%), the USA (6%), and Italy (3%). Our findings depict a developing field that is exploring a mix of evaluative approaches. However, few evaluations appeared to be co-created. Although most studies referenced co-design/co-production, few described how much or how meaningfully people with lived experience were involved in the evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]