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]

Background: Recovery Colleges (RCs) are mental health and well-being education centres where people come together and learn skills that support their wellness. Co-production, co-learning and transformative education are fundamental to RCs. People with lived experience are recognized as experts who partner with health professionals in the design and actualization of educational programming. The pandemic has changed how RCs operate by necessitating a shift from in-person to virtual offerings. Given the relational ethos of RCs, it is important to explore how the experiences of RC members and communities were impacted during this time. To date, there has been limited scholarship on this topic. Methods: In this exploratory phase of a larger project, we used participatory action research to interview people who were accessing, volunteering and/or working in RCs across Canada. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with twenty-nine individuals who provided insights on what is important to them about RC programming. Results: Our study was conducted amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, participants elucidated how their involvement in RCs was impacted by pandemic related restrictions. The results of this study demonstrate that RC programming is most effective when it: (1) is inclusive; (2) has a "good vibe"; and (3) equips people to live a fuller life. Conclusions: The pandemic, despite its challenges, has yielded insights into a possible evolution of the RC model that transcends the pandemic-context. In a time of great uncertainty, RCs served as safe spaces where people could redefine, pursue, maintain or recover wellness on their own terms. Plain English summary: Background: Recovery Colleges (RCs) are mental health and well-being education centres where people come together and learn skills that support their personal recovery journeys. What did we want to know? What approach did we take?: In this phase of a larger project, we used a participatory action research approach to interview people who were accessing, volunteering and/or working in RCs across Canada. This research approach draws on the knowledge of all researchers and participants and places equal value on personal and professional experiences. Therefore, this study was created and shaped by, with, and for people who participate in RCs in partnership with academic researchers. What Did We Do?: Twenty-nine individuals shared what is important to them about RC programming. Our study took place during the COVID-19 pandemic during the pandemic-related restrictions such as social distancing. What did we learn?: The results of this study demonstrate that RC programming is most effective when it: (1) is inclusive; (2) has a "good vibe"; and (3) equips people to live a fuller life. The pandemic, despite its challenges, could inform an evolution of the RC model that lasts beyond the pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]