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
. 2024 Mar 7;10(1):30.
doi: 10.1186/s40900-024-00561-7.

A balancing act: navigating the nuances of co-production in mental health research

Sophie Soklaridis  1 , Holly Harris  2 , Rowen Shier  1 , Jordana Rovet  1 , Georgia Black  1 , Gail Bellissimo  1 , Sam Gruszecki  1 , Elizabeth Lin  1 , Anna Di Giandomenico  1
Affiliations

A balancing act: navigating the nuances of co-production in mental health research

Sophie Soklaridis et al. Res Involv Engagem. .

Abstract

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: 1. Navigating power relations together 2. Multi-directional learning 3. Slow and steady wins the race 4. 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.

Keywords: Co-production; Participatory action research; Power; Recovery College; Values; Vulnerability.

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: 1. Navigating power relations together 2. Multi-directional learning 3. Slow and steady wins the race 4. 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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

References

    1. Brandsen T, Verschuere B, Steen T. Co-production and co-creation: engaging citizens in public services. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge; 2018.
    1. Faulkner A, Thompson R. Uncovering the emotional labour of involvement and co-production in mental health research. Disabil Soc. 2023;38:537–560. doi: 10.1080/09687599.2021.1930519. - DOI
    1. Durbin A, Kapustianyk G, Nisenbaum R, Wang R, Aratangy T, Khan B, Stergiopoulos V. Recovery education for people experiencing housing instability: an evaluation protocol. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2019;65:468–478. doi: 10.1177/0020764019858650. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sommer J, Gill K, Stein-Parbury J. Walking side-by-side: recovery colleges revolutionising mental health care. Ment Health Soc Incl. 2018;22:18–26. doi: 10.1108/MHSI-11-2017-0050. - DOI
    1. Oliver K, Kothari A, Mays N. The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research? Health Res Policy Syst. 2019;17:33. doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0432-3. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources