Search results

Co-production is becoming a more widely used term in mental health care in England, but it is not always clear what this means nor what the evidence base is behind particular uses of the concept. The purpose of this paper is to set some of this discussion into a historical context and examine some of the relevant evidence base to begin to highlight the challenges with operationalising more co-production. This is by way of setting the scene for the other articles in this special edition of the journal. The paper then provides an overview of the other articles on co-production in this edition.

The paper is a short review and discussion of some key issues and evidence relevant to co-production in mental health.

Some key historical insights from other moves to transform mental health care are discussed, recognising that these developments can take a long time to reach maturity in services and practice across the whole country. The discussion of some pertinent research and of the other articles in this special edition helps to highlight what foundations the author have in place for greater co-production in mental health care, and what remains as some of the challenges and gaps in the knowledge.

The paper provides a historical overview of some key issues, evidence and lessons pertaining to moves to develop more co-production in mental health.

In contrast to the largely functionalist and apolitical literature which dominates organisational scholarship on exploitation and exploration after March, this paper seeks to complement this view of exploitation and exploration with a Marxist reading which is unwittingly implied by these terms. More specifically, we combine neo-Marxist and paleo-Marxist arguments to more fully understand the conflictual relations that underpin exploitation and exploration in the management of firms. This enables us to address both the objective and subjective dimensions of exploitation and exploration which firms and workers are involved in through the contemporary capitalist labour process. We illustrate this by drawing on a case study of a large Swedish manufacturing firm which sought to improve lean production by systematically helping employees to explore their own lifestyles and possibilities for a healthier and happier life.

The purpose of this paper is to contextualize the concepts of “service co-production” and “value co-creation” to health care services, challenging the traditional bio-medical model which focusses on illness treatment and neglects the role played by patients in the provision of care.

For this purpose, the author conducted a systematic review, which paved the way for the identification of the concept of “health care co-production” and allowed to discuss its effects and implications. Starting from a database of 254 records, 65 papers have been included in systematic review and informed the development of this paper.

Co-production of health care services implies the establishment of co-creating partnerships between health care professionals and patients, which are aimed at mobilizing the dormant resources of the latter. However, several barriers prevent the full implementation of health care co-production, nurturing the application of the traditional bio-medical model.

Co-production of health care is difficult to realize, due to both health care professionals’ hostility and patients unwillingness to be involved in the provision of care. Nonetheless, the scientific literature is consistent in claiming that co-production of care paves the way for increased health outcomes, enhanced patient satisfaction, better service innovation, and cost savings. The establishment of multi-disciplinary health care teams, the improvement of patient-provider communication, and the enhancement of the use of ICTs for the purpose of value co-creation are crucial ingredients in the recipe for increased patient engagement.

To the knowledge of the author, this is the first paper aimed at systematizing the scientific literature in the field of health care co-production. The originality of this paper stems from its twofold relevance: on the one hand, it emphasizes the pros and the cons of health care co-production and, on the other hand, it provides with insightful directions to deal with the engagement of patients in value co-creation.

The purpose of this paper is to study four cases of the adoption of co-production and compare them according to the type of user involvement, contextual factors and the organizational structure.

In total, 30 interviews were conducted in four mental health organizations which are implementing co-production in the North of Italy. Interviews were conducted with clinicians, nurses, patients and family members. The data collected was triangulated with further sources and official documents of organizations. The results have been compared by means of a validated international framework (IAP2) regarding the contextual factors and the level of co-production adopted.

The adoption of co-production in the four cases differs by the activities implemented and how organizations involve informal actors. It seems to be influenced by the contextual factors specific to each organization: power, professionals’ opinions and leadership. Organizations whose practitioners and leaders are willing to distribute their power and value informal actors’ opinions seem to facilitate the systematic involvement of users. Overall, the results highlight the importance of considering contextual factors when evaluating and describing co-production activities.

This paper contributes to describing how mental health organizations are implementing co-production. It examines the influence of contextual factors on the type of co-production adopted.

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.

Multiple connotations and conceptions of health need are currently in use. The purpose of this paper is to specify some important distinctions regarding this confusing multiplicity in a taxonomic fashion relevant to the economic problems that arise in addressing health need. Classification is possible with the relevant concepts in conventional economic theory. The classification applies wherever economic considerations bear upon health need.

Initially, some seminal economic ideas about need are presented from Marshall, Pauly, Banfield, Jevons, Deaton and Meullbauer, and Georgescu‐Roegen. Recent discussions of basic needs by Sen and Nussbaum concerning “capabilities” and human flourishing are also considered. Ruger's subsequent developments of these concepts specifically for health are noted. The paper then specifies and classifies the current economic connotations of “health need” by applying positive economic analysis and the framework of economic theory. In particular, the conventional theories of consumer demand and production supply are useful. Geometric tools of analysis along with illustrations from the health sector specify various distinctions and classifications.

The uses of the generic term “need” relate to quite different economic problems. The findings show how diverse interpretations of need can be specified.

Distinctions over health need are important since, in many Western countries, need is one of the “pillars” of the Welfare State. Effective policy requires sound conceptions and measurements of need. Given the relevance of economics for approaching competing resource uses in the face of health need, measurement of need is improved with taxonomy, and confusion reduced.

The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the popular policy assumption of co-production is feasible in secure psychiatric settings.

The assumptions of co-production are listed and then used as a basis for an immanent critique to test the feasibility described in the purpose of the paper. An explanatory critique exploring consumerism in the welfare state then follows. These forms of critique are derived from the philosophy of critical realism.

A distinction is made between the co-production of knowledge about mental health services and the actual co-production of those services. It is concluded that the former has emerged but the latter is not feasible, given the limitations on citizenship imposed by psychiatric detention.

Evidence for the co-production of mental health services (rather than the co-production of knowledge about those services) remains sparse.

The contradictions about citizenship created by the existence of mental health legislation and the social control role of mental health services requires ongoing honest reflects by mental health professionals and those responsible for the development of mental health services.

As described above, mental health legislation pre-empts confidence in the co-production of mental health services.

Whilst there is a small literature on co-production and mental health services, alluded to at the outset, this paper uses immanent and explanatory critiques to deepen our understanding of the topic.

Mental health services have changed significantly in the past few decades. Currently, our services are transforming from one that was biomedically led to one that encompasses a recovery orientation. Additionally, a new field of study as it related to mental health care is emerging that of trauma-informed care. In this chapter, we explore briefly what we mean by the terms trauma and trauma-informed care. This is followed by a critical examination of how co-production and servant leadership can work together to support individuals through their trauma towards recovery and well-being. From which, we suggest that peer support workers are suitable candidates to co-produce trauma-informed services as they embody the connecting principles of choice and empowerment needed for all three concepts to converge and work together to enhance recovery and well-being. While I focus on using co-production in the mental health space in this chapter, the principles and practices can equally apply to other health and social care services.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief overview of the literature to date which has focused on co-production within mental healthcare in the UK, including service user and carer involvement and collaboration.

The paper presents key outcomes from studies which have explicitly attempted to introduce co-produced care in addition to specific tools designed to encourage co-production within mental health services. The paper debates the cultural and ideological shift required for staff, service users and family members to undertake co-produced care and outlines challenges ahead with respect to service redesign and new roles in practice.

Informal carers (family and friends) are recognised as a fundamental resource for mental health service provision, as well as a rich source of expertise through experience, yet their views are rarely solicited by mental health professionals or taken into account during decision making. This issue is considered alongside new policy recommendations which advocate the development of co-produced services and care.

Despite the launch of a number of initiatives designed to build on peer experience and support, there has been a lack of attention on the differing dynamic which remains evident between healthcare professionals and people using mental health services. Co-production sheds a light on the blurring of roles, trust and shared endeavour (Slay and Stephens, 2013) but, despite an increase in peer recovery workers across England, there has been little research or service development designed to focus explicitly on this particular dynamic.

Despite these challenges, coproduction in mental healthcare represents a real opportunity for the skills and experience of family members to be taken into account and could provide a mechanism to achieve the “triangle of care” with input, recognition and respect given to all (service users, carers, professionals) whose lives are touched by mental distress. However, lack of attention in relation to carer perspectives, expertise and potential involvement could undermine the potential for coproduction to act as a vehicle to encourage person-centred care which accounts for social in addition to clinical factors.

The families of people with severe and enduring mental illness assume a major responsibility for the provision of care and support to their relatives over extended time periods (Rose et al., 2004). Involving carers in discussions about care planning could help to provide a wider picture about the impact of mental health difficulties, beyond symptom reduction. The “co-production of care” reflects a desire to work meaningfully and fully with service users and carers. However, to date, little work has been undertaken in order to coproduce services through the “triangle of care” with carers bringing their own skills, resources and expertise.

This paper debates the current involvement of carers across mental healthcare and debates whether co-production could be a vehicle to utilise carer expertise, enhance quality and satisfaction with mental healthcare. The critique of current work highlights the danger of increasing expectations on service providers to undertake work aligned to key initiatives (shared decision-making, person-centred care, co-production), that have common underpinning principles but, in the absence of practical guidance, could be addressed in isolation rather than as an integrated approach within a “triangle of care”.

This chapter reviews factors responsible for climate change, impacts of the change on animal health, zoonotic diseases, and their linkage with One-Health program.

This chapter is based on the available literature related to climate change and its effect on animal health and production from different points. The causes and change forcers of climate change, direct and indirect effects of the change on animal health management, host–pathogen–vector interaction, and zoonotic diseases are included. Inter-linkage between climate change and One-Health program are also assessed.

Beside natural causes of climatic change, greenhouse gases are increasing due to human activities, causing global climate changes which have direct and indirect animal health and production performance impacts. The direct impacts are increased ambient temperature, floods, and droughts, while the indirect are reduced availability of water and food. The change and effect also promote diseases spread, increase survival and availability of the pathogen and its intermediate vector host, responsible for distribution and prevalence of tremendous zoonotic, infectious, and vector-borne diseases. The adverse effect on the biodiversity, distribution of animals and micro flora, genetic makeup of microbials which may lead to emerging and re-emerging disease and their outbreaks make the strong linkage between climate change and One-Health.

Global climate change is receiving increasing international attention where international organizations are increasing their focus on tackling the health impacts. Thus, there is a need for parallel mitigation of climate change and animal diseases in a global form.

Most research on climate change is limited to environmental protection, however this chapter provides a nexus between climate change, animal health, livestock production, and the One-Health program for better livelihood.