This article is a response to Oliver et al.'s Commentary 'The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?' recently published in Health Research Policy and Systems (2019, 17:33). The original commentary raises some important questions about how and when to co-produce health research, including highlighting various professional costs to those involved. However, we identify four related limitations in their inquiry, as follows: (1) the adoption of a problematically expansive definition of co-production that fails to acknowledge key features that distinguish co-production from broader collaboration; (2) a strong focus on technocratic rationales for co-producing research and a relative neglect of democratic rationales; (3) the transposition of legitimate concerns relating to collaboration between researchers and practitioners onto work with patients, service users and marginalised citizens; and (4) the presentation of bad practice as an inherent flaw, or indeed 'dark side', of co-production without attending to the corrupting influence of contextual factors within academic research that facilitate and even promote such malpractice. The Commentary's limitations can be seen to reflect the contemporary use of the term 'co-production' more broadly. We describe this phenomenon as 'cobiquity'an apparent appetite for participatory research practice and increased emphasis on partnership working, in combination with the related emergence of a plethora of 'co' words, promoting a conflation of meanings and practices from different collaborative traditions. This phenomenon commonly leads to a misappropriation of the term 'co-production'. Our main motivation is to address this imprecision and the detrimental impact it has on efforts to enable co-production with marginalised and disadvantaged groups. We conclude that Oliver et al. stray too close to 'the problem' of 'co-production' seeing only the dark side rather than what is casting the shadows. We warn against such a restricted view and argue for greater scrutiny of the structural factors that largely explain academia's failure to accommodate and promote the egalitarian and utilitarian potential of co-produced research.

Data on the impact of design on treatment outcomes are inconclusive. Rigorous randomised controlled trials, qualitative studies and novel methods are called for. Different stakeholders' responses to the ward as a symbolic environment merit further investigation.

Background: Psychiatric ward design may make an important contribution to patient outcomes and well-being. However, research is hampered by an inability to assess its effects robustly. This paper reports on a study which deployed innovative methods to capture service user and staff perceptions of ward design. Method: User generated measures of the impact of ward design were developed and tested on four acute adult wards using participatory methodology. Additionally, inpatients took photographs to illustrate their experience of the space in two wards. Data were compared across wards. Results: Satisfactory reliability indices emerged based on both service user and staff responses. Black and minority ethnic (BME) service users and those with a psychosis spectrum diagnosis have more positive views of the ward layout and fixtures. Staff members have more positive views than service users, while priorities of staff and service users differ. Inpatient photographs prioritise hygiene, privacy and control and address symbolic aspects of the ward environment. Conclusions: Participatory and visual methodologies can provide robust tools for an evaluation of the impact of psychiatric ward design on users.

This article considers the strengths and potential contributions of participatory visual methods for healthcare quality improvement research. It argues that such approaches may enable us to expand our understanding of ‘patient experience’ and of its potential for generating new knowledge for health systems. In particular, they may open up dimensions of people’s engagement with services and treatments which exceed both the declarative nature of responses to questionnaires and the narrative sequencing of self reports gathered through qualitative interviewing. I will suggest that working with such methods may necessitate a more reflexive approach to the constitution of evidence in quality improvement work. To this end, the article will first consider the emerging rationale for the use of visual participatory methods in improvement before outlining the implications of two related approaches—photo-elicitation and PhotoVoice—for the constitution of ‘experience’. It will then move to a participatory model for healthcare improvement work, Experience Based Co-Design (EBCD). It will argue that EBCD exemplifies both the strengths and the limitations of adequating visual participatory approaches to quality improvement ends. The article will conclude with a critical reflection on a small photographic study, in which the author participated, and which sought to harness service user perspectives for the design of psychiatric facilities, as a way of considering the potential contribution of visual participatory methods for quality improvement.

Objective To understand how current funding expectations that applied health research is undertaken in partnership with research institutions, health service providers and other stakeholders may impact on patient and public involvement (PPI). Background While there is considerable research on the potential impact of PPI in health research, the processes of embedding PPI in research teams remain understudied. We draw on anthropological research on meetings as sites of production and reproduction of institutional cultures and external contexts to investigate how these functions of meetings may affect the potential contributions of patients, carers and the public in research. Methods We present an ethnography of meetings that draws from a larger set of case studies of PPI in applied health research settings. The study draws on ethnographic observations, interviews with team members, analysis of documents and a presentation of preliminary findings through which feedback from informants was gathered. Results We identified four means by which the oversight meetings regulated research and constrained the possibilities for PPI: a logic of ‘deliverables’ and imagined interlocutors, the performance of inclusion, positioning PPI in an ‘elsewhere’ of research, and the use of meetings to embed apprenticeship for junior researchers. Conclusions PPI is essentially out of sync from the institutional logic of ‘deliverables’ constituting research partnerships. Embedding PPI in research requires challenging this logic.