“Staying native”: coproduction in mental health services research

International Journal of Public Sector Management - Tập 23 Số 6 - Trang 567-577 - 2010
SteveGillard1, KatiTurner1, KathleenLovell1, KingsleyNorton2, TomClarke3, RachaelAddicott4, GerryMcGivern5, EwanFerlie5
1Division of Mental Health, St George’s University of London, London, UK
2West London Mental Health NHS Trust, Southall, UK
3South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust, Springfield University Hospital, London, UK
4The King's Fund, London, UK
5Department of Management, King's College London, UK

Tóm tắt

PurposeThe 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.Design/methodology/approachA 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.FindingsThe 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.Research limitations/implicationsThe 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.Practical implicationsThe paper demonstrates the potential for repeated exercises in coproduction to build capacity in collaborative approaches to both HSR and service planning.Originality/valueThe 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.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Averill, J. (2002), “Matrix analysis as a complementary analytic strategy in qualitative inquiry”, Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 855‐66.

Baxter, L., Thorne, L. and Mitchell, A. (2001), Small Voices: Big Ideas, Washington Singer Press, Exeter.

Beresford, P. (2005), “Developing the theoretical basis for service user/survivor‐led research and equal involvement in research”, Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 4‐9.

Charlmers, I . and Altman, D . (1995), Systematic Reviews, BMJ, London.

Darzi (Lord) (2008), High Quality Care For All: NHS Next Stage Review Final Report, Department of Health, London.

Denis, J.‐L. and Lomas, J. (2003), “Convergent evolution – the academic and policy roots of collaborative research”, Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, Vol. 8, S2, pp. 1‐6.

Department of Health (2006), Research for Best Health: A New National Health Research Strategy, Department of Health, London.

Department of Health (2007), World Class Commissioning: Vision, Department of Health, London.

Department of Health (2009), New Horizons: Towards a Shared Vision for Mental Health, Department of Health, London.

Dopson, S. and FitzGerald, L. (Eds) (2005), Knowledge to Action?, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Faulkner, A. and Thomas, P. (2002), “User‐led research and evidence based medicine”, British Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 180, pp. 1‐3.

Ferlie, E., Fitzgerald, L., Wood, M. and Hawkins, C. (2005), “The (non) spread of innovations: the mediating role of professional groups”, Academic Review of Management, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 117‐34.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwatrzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994), The New Production of Knowledge, Sage, London.

Hyde, P. and Davies, H.T.O. (2004), “Service design, culture and performance: collusion and coproduction in health care”, Human Relations, Vol. 57 No. 11, pp. 1407‐26.

Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2001), Rethinking Science, Polity Press, Cambridge.

Oliver, S., Clarke‐Jones, L., Rees, R., Milne, R., Buchanan, P., Gabbay, J., Gyte, G., Oakley, A. and Stein, K. (2004), “Involving consumers in R and D Agenda setting for the NHS – developing an evidence based approach”, Health Technology Assessment, Vol. 8 No. 15, University of Southampton, NHS R and D HTA Programme.

Ong, B.N. (1993), Practice of Health Services Research, Chapman and Hall, London.

Ong, B.N. and Humphris, G. (1993), “Prioritising needs with communities: rapid appraisal methodologies in health”, in Popay, J. and Williams, G. (Eds), Researching the People's Health, Chapman and Hall, London, pp. 59‐84.

Popay, J. and Williams, G. (Eds) (1994), Researching the People's Health, Routledge, London.

SCIE (2007), A Common Purpose: Recovery in Future Mental Health Services, Social Care Institute for Excellence, London.

Simpson, E. and House, A. (2003), “User and carer involvement in mental health services: from rhetoric to science”, British Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 183, pp. 89‐91.

Turner, M. and Beresford, P. (2005), User Controlled Research. Brunel: Brunel University, Centre for Citizen Participation, Eastleigh.

UK Mental Health Research Network (2005), Guidance of Good Practice: Service User Involvement in the UK, UK Mental Health Research Network, London.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

International Journal of Public Sector Management

Tập 23 Số 6

567-577

Thông tin tác giả