Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 May;24 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):134-146.
doi: 10.1111/hex.13088. Epub 2020 Jun 9.

Reflections, impact and recommendations of a co-produced qualitative study with young people who have experience of mental health difficulties

Lindsay H Dewa  1   2 , Anna Lawrence-Jones  1 , Caroline Crandell  3 , Jack Jaques  3 , Katy Pickles  3 , Mary Lavelle  4 , Sofia Pappa  5 , Paul Aylin  1   2
Affiliations

Reflections, impact and recommendations of a co-produced qualitative study with young people who have experience of mental health difficulties

Lindsay H Dewa et al. Health Expect. 2021 May.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: co-production; health research; mental health; patient and public involvement; technology; young people.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors have completed the Unified Competing Form and declare: no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Flow chart showing young person involvement by principles of co‐production throughout all research stages
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Section of thematic map before co‐researcher involvement
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Section of thematic map after co‐researcher involvement
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. The BMJ . Reporting patient and public involvement in research. https://www.bmj.com/sites/default/files/attachments/resources/2018/03/PP.... Accessed January 10, 2019
    1. Ocloo J, Matthews R. From tokenism to empowerment: progressing patient and public involvement in healthcare improvement. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25(8):626‐632. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Richards T, Godlee F. The BMJ’s own patient journey. BMJ. 2014;348:g3726. - PubMed
    1. Richards T, Snow R, Schroter S. Logging the BMJ’s “patient journey”: Big changes, big challenges, much learning, and encouraging progress. BMJ. 2015;351:h4396. - PubMed
    1. National Institute for Health Research, Research Design Service (RDS) . Patient and Public Involvement in Health and Social Care Research: A Handbook for Researchers. London; 2014. https://www.rds-yh.nihr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/RDS_PPI-Handboo.... Accessed September 9, 2019

Publication types