India Hopkins, Max Verlander, Lucy Clarkson, Pamela Jacobsen
{"title":"我们对心理健康研究中共同制作过程中的权力分享了解多少？系统性综述和专题综合。","authors":"India Hopkins, Max Verlander, Lucy Clarkson, Pamela Jacobsen","doi":"10.1111/hex.70014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Guidance on co-production between researchers and people with lived experience was published in 2018 by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) advisory group, previously known as INVOLVE. This guidance described sharing power as a key principle within co-production. Authentic sharing of power within co-produced mental health research does not always occur however and remains a challenge to achieve within many projects.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To explore what has been learned about the sharing of power in co-production within mental health research since the publication of these guidelines, by synthesising qualitative literature relating to power within co-produced mental health research.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We carried out a systematic review with thematic synthesis. We searched CINHAL, Embase and PubMed databases to identify qualitative or mixed-method studies relating to power within co-produced mental health research. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers for inclusion and appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool (CASP) for qualitative research.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>We identified nine papers that met the criteria for inclusion and were included in the synthesis. Three themes were generated: (1) Battling to share power against a more powerful system, (2) Empowerment through relationships and (3) The journey is turbulent, but it is not supposed to be smooth.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Results highlight that power is pervasive, especially within the hierarchical systems research is often conducted within. Sharing power within co-produced mental health research is an ongoing complex process that is not intended to be easy. Respectful trusting relationships can help facilitate power sharing. However, ultimately meaningful change needs to come from research funders, universities and NHS providers.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patient or Public Contribution</h3>\n \n <p>The study authors include a lived experience researcher who contributed to the review design, analysis and write-up.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":"27 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11375733/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What Do We Know About Sharing Power in Co-Production in Mental Health Research? A Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis\",\"authors\":\"India Hopkins, Max Verlander, Lucy Clarkson, Pamela Jacobsen\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/hex.70014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Guidance on co-production between researchers and people with lived experience was published in 2018 by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) advisory group, previously known as INVOLVE. This guidance described sharing power as a key principle within co-production. Authentic sharing of power within co-produced mental health research does not always occur however and remains a challenge to achieve within many projects.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>To explore what has been learned about the sharing of power in co-production within mental health research since the publication of these guidelines, by synthesising qualitative literature relating to power within co-produced mental health research.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We carried out a systematic review with thematic synthesis. We searched CINHAL, Embase and PubMed databases to identify qualitative or mixed-method studies relating to power within co-produced mental health research. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers for inclusion and appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool (CASP) for qualitative research.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>We identified nine papers that met the criteria for inclusion and were included in the synthesis. Three themes were generated: (1) Battling to share power against a more powerful system, (2) Empowerment through relationships and (3) The journey is turbulent, but it is not supposed to be smooth.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Results highlight that power is pervasive, especially within the hierarchical systems research is often conducted within. Sharing power within co-produced mental health research is an ongoing complex process that is not intended to be easy. Respectful trusting relationships can help facilitate power sharing. However, ultimately meaningful change needs to come from research funders, universities and NHS providers.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Patient or Public Contribution</h3>\\n \\n <p>The study authors include a lived experience researcher who contributed to the review design, analysis and write-up.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55070,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Expectations\",\"volume\":\"27 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11375733/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Expectations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70014\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Expectations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70014","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
What Do We Know About Sharing Power in Co-Production in Mental Health Research? A Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis
Background
Guidance on co-production between researchers and people with lived experience was published in 2018 by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) advisory group, previously known as INVOLVE. This guidance described sharing power as a key principle within co-production. Authentic sharing of power within co-produced mental health research does not always occur however and remains a challenge to achieve within many projects.
Objectives
To explore what has been learned about the sharing of power in co-production within mental health research since the publication of these guidelines, by synthesising qualitative literature relating to power within co-produced mental health research.
Methods
We carried out a systematic review with thematic synthesis. We searched CINHAL, Embase and PubMed databases to identify qualitative or mixed-method studies relating to power within co-produced mental health research. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers for inclusion and appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool (CASP) for qualitative research.
Results
We identified nine papers that met the criteria for inclusion and were included in the synthesis. Three themes were generated: (1) Battling to share power against a more powerful system, (2) Empowerment through relationships and (3) The journey is turbulent, but it is not supposed to be smooth.
Conclusions
Results highlight that power is pervasive, especially within the hierarchical systems research is often conducted within. Sharing power within co-produced mental health research is an ongoing complex process that is not intended to be easy. Respectful trusting relationships can help facilitate power sharing. However, ultimately meaningful change needs to come from research funders, universities and NHS providers.
Patient or Public Contribution
The study authors include a lived experience researcher who contributed to the review design, analysis and write-up.
期刊介绍：
Health Expectations promotes critical thinking and informed debate about all aspects of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care, health policy and health services research including:
• Person-centred care and quality improvement
• Patients'' participation in decisions about disease prevention and management
• Public perceptions of health services
• Citizen involvement in health care policy making and priority-setting
• Methods for monitoring and evaluating participation
• Empowerment and consumerism
• Patients'' role in safety and quality
• Patient and public role in health services research
• Co-production (researchers working with patients and the public) of research, health care and policy
Health Expectations is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, review articles and critical commentaries. It includes papers which clarify concepts, develop theories, and critically analyse and evaluate specific policies and practices. The Journal provides an inter-disciplinary and international forum in which researchers (including PPIE researchers) from a range of backgrounds and expertise can present their work to other researchers, policy-makers, health care professionals, managers, patients and consumer advocates.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
