Search results

There is currently much policy emphasis on both partnership working between health and social services in the UK and on the outcomes delivered by services. This article provides an account of two consecutive projects centred on these two themes. The first project, at the University of Glasgow, sought to address the lack of evidence about the outcomes delivered to service users by partnerships. Following from this project, the Joint Improvement Team of the Scottish Government commissioned the researchers to develop a toolkit to involve users and unpaid carers in performance management in community care in Scotland. The remit of this second project expanded during 2007 as it became linked with the development of the emerging National Outcomes Framework for community care in Scotland. This article outlines the outcomes‐based piloting work currently under way in Scotland.

A year‐long review of services was carried out in South Essex by local authority and primary care trust commissioners to help inform future commissioning plans. The review included a focus group to consult service users, carers, project staff and referrers across the area. This was undertaken by SE‐SURG, a group of current and former service users who carry out research and consultation work for mental health service commissioners and providers. The results of the consultation are presented here, particularly in relation to the strengths and limitations of current services, service user aspirations and staff expectations.

Background: historical assumptions and knowledge about personality disorders (PDs) have inhibited efforts to improve PD services. Public and patient involvement in research has become a requirement of UK health services research. The potential for people with personal experiences of PD to ‘coproduce’ research knowledge as a means to transform PD services is largely unexplored.Objectives: to consider the extent to which research teams on two recent projects have ‘coproduced’ knowledge about PD, and the potential impact of coproduction on research findings and service delivery.Setting: two qualitative research projects were conducted by teams comprising conventional academic, clinical, service user and carer researchers. Reflective writing by researchers was analysed thematically to explore research objectives.Findings: researchers reported that their high expectations of research coproduction were mostly met, that findings would have been different without involvement of service user and carer researchers, and that the research would have wider credibility because of their involvement.Conclusions: coproduction is characterised by enabling perspectives from outside the conventional clinical‐academic health research team to inform the research decision‐making process, and by self‐conscious reflection to make explicit how findings are shaped as a result. The potential to improve PD services by coproducing knowledge was demonstrated.

A growing literature reports the benefits and challenges of patient and public involvement (PPI) in research; nevertheless, understanding PPI in research design remains under-developed. The purpose of this paper is to report learning experiences from involving service users as research partners in two projects that developed and evaluated guidelines for good practice in this regard. The main objective was to evaluate these guidelines.

PPI research guidelines were developed through five workshops involving service users/patients, carers, health and social care professionals/managers and academics. Using a participatory qualitative approach, these guidelines were evaluated through mapping them against the two service user research partners’ experience within another project.

The guidelines were found to be fit for purpose, as they allowed problems to be easily identified and reassurance that required standards were being met. Both academic and service user research partners learned and gained relevant skills. Two service user research partners also found their daily living skills unexpectedly enhanced by project participation.

The PPI guidelines, the authors developed were produced by consensus involving several stakeholders. Service users involved as research partners in the project experienced unanticipated personal benefits.

My name is Debbie Mayes and I am writing as someone with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder who is also a researcher. This article is about service user research ‐ a growing trend in research for service users to be employed and openly identified as a service user as well as a researcher. I am currently a service user researcher at the Spectrum Centre for Mental Health Research at Lancaster University, but in the past I have also worked for the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health and the Institute of Psychiatry, both in London.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the limitations of the current research paradigm in mental health, particularly from a recovery perspective, and to suggest an alternative approach to clinical research which may be more in line with recovery principles.

The paper will first review the dominant research methodology utilised by the mental health disciplines, discussing some of the limitations of this approach, particularly from a recovery perspective. Existing research methodologies which embody recovery principles will then be outlined, before an alternative, more recovery-oriented, approach to research is discussed.

The findings from this paper suggest that the current research paradigm utilised by the mental health disciplines may not be producing the most optimal results, and that a more recovery-oriented approach could help add to the value of this research, while also involving service users and their carers in the research process in a more meaningful way.

This paper will explore possibilities for undertaking recovery-informed research, which has implications, not only for researchers, service users and their families, but also for the practice of mental health disciplines more broadly.

This paper will introduce a critique of traditional research methodology in mental health and will present an alternative recovery-oriented approach which could help to overcome some of the limitations of the more traditional approach.

The purpose of this paper is to consider four recent articles relating to how included service users are in decision making about their medication in mental health services.

One article describes conversations between a psychiatrist and service users about medication. The second paper describes a study in which young people were supported with the aim of developing their confidence to challenge medication decisions. The third paper reports on interviews with both professionals and service users about medication decisions. The fourth paper presents a theory of how the wider context can affect medication decision making in mental health.

The first paper shows how a psychiatrist can persuade service users to accept medication decisions. The second paper shows how some young people can challenge medication decisions if they have the right support. The third paper illustrates how both professionals and service users may doubt service users’ ability to decide about medication, and pessimistically suggests that shared decision making may be unrealistic. In contrast to this, the fourth paper offers hope of changing how mental health services are organised in order to enable service users to be more empowered about medication decisions.

A model of shared decision making is being imported into mental health from physical health. These four papers illustrate problems with a simple transfer from physical to mental health. The present paper points to differences in apparent awareness of different clinical researchers of the need to tackle service users’ disempowerment in mental health care, showing how some researchers are tackling this.

Co-production in the context of mental health research has become something of a buzzword to indicate a project where mental health service users and academics are in a research partnership. The notion of partnership where one party has the weight of academic tradition on its side is a contestable one, so in this paper the authors “write to understand” (Richardson and St Pierre, 2005) as the purpose of this paper is to examine the experiences of working in a co-produced research project that investigated supported housing services for people with serious mental health problems.

The authors set out to trouble the notion of co-produced research though a painfully honest account of the project, while at the same time recognising it as an idea whose time has come and suggesting a framework to support its implementation.

Co-production is a useful, albeit challenging, approach to research.

This paper is particularly relevant to researchers who are endeavouring to produce work that challenges the status quo through giving voice to people who are frequently silenced by the research process.

The purpose of this paper is to describe a recent experiment in research coproduction in an evaluation of service planning at a London Mental Health NHS Trust. The paper aims to consider whether members of the research team who have themselves been users of mental health services are able to contribute to the research process as “experts by experience”, or if their experiential knowledge is “colonized” within the academic research team.

A qualitative, comparative case study approach was adopted, using structured observations and semi‐structured interviews. Researchers' reflective accounts and a reflective focus group were employed to explore the process of coproduction.

The paper concludes that, far from “colonising” expertise by experience, the experiment builds local capacity in research coproduction and usefully informs a service planning process that reflects the priorities and concerns of a range of stakeholders.

The paper describes a small, local experiment in research coproduction and so findings are limited in their scope. However, the study demonstrates an effective methodological approach to evaluating, empirically, the impact of coproduction on the health services research (HSR) process.

The paper demonstrates the potential for repeated exercises in coproduction to build capacity in collaborative approaches to both HSR and service planning.

The involvement of experts by experience is increasingly a policy requirement in the domains of both health service planning and HSR in the UK. There are very few empirical studies that evaluate the impact of that coproduction.

This study aims to explore service users’ experience of psychological therapy as part of a community sentence with a Mental Health Treatment Requirement (MHTR) in Birmingham Courts between January and December 2018.

All service users that had therapy in this period were telephoned a month after ending and offered a semi-structured telephone interview. Seven service users agreed to be recorded. This data was then transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis to gain a richer understanding of their lived experience.

Themes identified were: Is the MHTR for me? Opening up, enlightening connections and personal change. Service users initially questioned the relevance and burden of the order for them; the experience of therapy allowed them to trust and talk about things unsaid in the past; this helped them to review and reconsider their understanding of themselves and their life choices and what further support they might need.

Interviews were not completed by an independent interviewer. Experience of working with offender manager supervision additionally available throughout the sentence was not explored.

What is included in the MHTR information and support needs to be informed by the service user’s perspective, including this can improve engagement.

Therapy was seen as a “a cog in the machine” and wider social inequalities may need to be addressed within the sentence.

This report focusses on experience of a therapeutic intervention – a key part of a community sentence with an MHTR.