Search results

Co-production has received increasing attention from managers and researchers in public services. In the health care sector, co-production has become a by-word for the meaningful engagement of patients yet there is still a lack of knowledge around what works when co-producing services. The paper sets out a set of pragmatic principles which may guide anyone embarking on co-producing health care services, and provides an illustration of a co-produced Young People’s Health Research Group in England. We conclude by outlining some learning points which are useful when establishing co-production projects.

The aim of this study was to address the unmet information needs of Malawian informal carers. We report on a three-year project which we co-created with informal carers, medical doctors and NGOs with the view to disseminate health advisory messages.

This study was developed on the principles of co-production. The impact of our health advisory messaging approach was assessed through observations and questionnaire-based surveys for quality, clarity and usefulness.

The messages were disseminated beyond the local support groups and reached a much wider community via word of mouth. The messages also led to short and medium term benefits for informal carers and their loved ones.

Our findings highlight the importance of understanding the contextual conditions of informal caring and that of co-producing interventions with the people these aim to benefit.

Science is too important to be left solely to scientists, and so the public need to be involved in the design, funding, delivery and implementation of health research, and in discussions about the ethics of research. Since the 1960s, the United Kingdom and many other countries have included scientists from outside health care in various roles in health care research, as well as nonscientists, ordinary citizens, patients and carers. In the last 20 years, these roles have increased in number and range, but significant challenges remain in ensuring that research is always conducted in an ethical fashion. Errors arise when it is assumed that research is ethical because it has passed a single test rather than being subject to constant vigilance; when academic training on its own is regarded as sufficient to guarantee ethical conduct; when pontification about sophisticated dilemmas ignores fundamental matters of equity and helpfulness and when there is an absence of curiosity about the value positions of others (Boaz et al., 2016). We argue in this chapter that in every setting, citizens have the potential to contribute to ethical debates, whether they assist in establishing priorities for research funding, serve as research funding co-applicants, take the lay member places on Research Ethics Committees and Steering Committees, collect and analyze data or co-author academic papers.

In mental health care the peer support workers (PSWs) are, by their experience based expertise, supporting the recovery of people using services and have also been shown to stimulate interprofessional learning (IPL) but which, due to hierarchical teams, is challenged. Therefore, to prepare the teams for IPL that includes PSWs, this study aims to suggest an interprofessional education (IPE) for mental health professions and PSWs. What would such an education look like?

The base, in the development of the IPE, is two earlier studies of teams’ inclusion of PSWs and the IPL.

The present study suggests Knowledge base 1 with three categories: different roles, expertise and perspectives, and Knowledge base 2 with two categories: teamwork and IPL. The conclusion is that such online IPE offers a readiness for mental health professions and PSWs, in teamwork, to exchange their different expertise to facilitate IPL. This is important to improve the quality of mental health services.

One limitation is that the empirical study, this paper is based on, is a small-scaled study. Nevertheless, the main results from this study and the other were considered useful as a ground for the development of the IPE.

By suggesting an IPE for mental health professions and PSWs, this paper adds to the literature on peer support as well as IPL.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute theoretical ideas of how peer support workers (PSWs) bring added value to interprofessional learning (IPL) in mental health care teamwork. The question is: How can we theoretically understand the value of PSWs’ expertise for IPL in mental health care teamwork?

Initially, the authors formulate a hypothesis. Then, the authors describe the focus and context in IPL and PSWs, respectively, and the PSWs’ and mental health professions’ different roles, expertise and perspectives. The authors also refer to some peer provided programs related to IPL. Finally, the authors construct an outline and apply ideas from Wenger’s Communities of Practice (CoP).

Using CoP, the PSWs as newcomers can by their perspectives change mental health professions’ perspectives and stimulate IPL in teamwork.

The paper gives theoretical insights of how PSWs can facilitate IPL in mental health care teamwork.

This article conceptualizes and constructs a comprehensive framework that can better help to answer that question – Who is accountable for social and public problems? – theoretically and practically.

Tracing the drivers behind two phenomena “accountability hole” and “accountability black hole”, stemming from “pushing power game” and “pulling power game”, respectively, this study considers (1) the three actors of society: citizens (civil society), corporations (market) and civil servants (government), and (2) the principal-agent relationship between the three actors in the face of social and public problems. As a result, the 4CAs framework that contains the three actors’ collaborative accountabilities to one another is presented.

The 4CAs model emphasizes (1) all three actors function as agents that are accountable to one another, (2) collaborative accountability beyond collaborative governance and (3) repowering citizens and corporations beyond just empowering them, i.e. returning their inherent rights and obligations to serve one another.

The 4CAs model may function as a descriptive and prescriptive lens through which the trilemma between market failure, government failure and citizen failure can be re-assessed and balanced. The model can also be used as a set of indicators for assessing and helping a society to better resolve the social and public problems collectively.

The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of the student mental health crisis in Higher Education (HE), and how resilience and grit, two important positive psychological constructs, can be beneficial for university students’ success and wellbeing. As part of a discussion around some of the current approaches to intervening in wellbeing in universities, the chapter provides evidence for the use of PPIs for wellbeing in university students, alongside some of the challenges of implementing these in HE. It also provides an overview of the Thriving Students Framework and presents a case for a multicomponent approach to monitoring and improving educational success. In particular, a wellbeing framework that, alongside resilience, also recognises the importance of strengths, persistence in the face of difficulty, a growth mindset, self-control and mental wellbeing; Academic Tenacity. The implications of utilising this framework for educational attainment in university students are discussed. The Bolton Uni-Stride Scale (BUSS), a single short measure of academic tenacity that combines the attributes enabling measurement and intervention to support university students to thrive, is also presented for educators to use.