Patient and Public Involvement in the Coproduction of Knowledge

Abstract

Patient and public involvement in health research is increasingly well established internationally, but the impacts of involvement on the research process are hard to evaluate. We describe a process of qualitative data analysis in a mental health research project with a high level of mental health service user and carer involvement, and reflect critically on how we produced our findings. Team members not from research backgrounds sometimes challenged academic conventions, leading to complex findings that would otherwise have been missing. An essential component of how we coproduced knowledge involved retaining methodological flexibility so that nonconventional research voices in the team could situate and critique what was conventionally known. Deliberate and transparent reflection on how "who we are" informed the knowledge we produced was integral to our inquiry. We conclude that reflecting on knowledge (co)production is a useful tool for evaluating the impact of patient and public involvement on health research.

Gaining by giving? Peer research into service user and carer perceptions of inclusivity in Higher Education

“…These add to those achievements and benefits of wider SUAC participation reported elsewhere (e.g. Barber et al, 2011;Brett et al, 2014;Faulkner, 2010;Gillard & Stacey, 2005;Gillard et al 2012;Hutchinson & Lovell, 2013;Patterson et al, 2014;Wallcraft et al, 2012). Other findings of this study, such as those that perceive considerable benefits to the education of students, corroborate other non-SUAC led research findings about such benefits (e.g.…”

“…Barber et al, 2011;Brett et al, 2014;Faulkner, 2010;Gillard & Stacey, 2005;Gillard, et al 2012;Hutchinson & Lovell, 2013;Patterson et al, 2014;Wallcraft et al, 2012), which particularly relates to the healthoriented Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) literature. With regard to the effect of SUAC involvement in research, Brett et al (2014) systematically reviewed 66 studies of PPI involvement and demonstrated that, despite a relatively weak evidence base (due partly to the nature of SUAC involvement not always being made clear), health and social work research has benefitted from PPI in the enhancement of the quality of research and in having better assured its appropriateness and relevance.…”

New ways of working in mental health services: a qualitative, comparative case study assessing and informing the emergence of new peer worker roles in mental health services in England

“…27,28 This study was largely undertaken -in terms of fieldwork, data collection and analysis -by two researchers with personal lived experience of mental health problems (hereafter referred to as service user researchers).…”

“…-is taken into account. 28 Employing peer workers in mental health services can be described in terms of the coproduction of mental health care. This study is underpinned by a coproduction approach to the research process.…”

"Seeing" the Difference: The Importance of Visibility and Action as a Mark of "Authenticity" in Co-production Comment on "Collaboration and Co-production of Knowledge in Healthcare: Opportunities and Challenges"

“…We believe this can be beneficial to both research and practice partners, and is a useful adjunct to the peer reviewed paper as legitimate academic output which has been defined as problematic for some stakeholders in co-production partnerships. 19 …”