Suchergebnisse

BACKGROUND: In the UK, there has been a strong drive towards patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research. Its benefits include improvements in the quality, relevance and acceptability of research, and empowerment, self-respect and value for service users. Organisational context can significantly influence the operationalisation of PPI. Research has highlighted power asymmetries between clinicians, researchers and service users. A resistance to power sharing, tokenism and assimilation into the existing culture suggest that a consultative, technocratic form of PPI is operating within health research settings. The aim of the study was to explore the development of PPI within a London based mental health biomedical research centre (BRC) over a period of 10 years from its inception. METHODS: This qualitative study compared data from 52 organisational documents and 16 semi-structured interviews with staff and service users associated with PPI within the Maudsley BRC. The data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Study design, data collection, analysis and write up were conducted by service user researchers. RESULTS: Our analysis showed a picture of increasing activity and acceptance of PPI, its alignment with the broader BRC research agenda, progressive involvement of service users in governance, and the development of a collaborative culture in research processes. The presence of salaried service user researchers in the organisation was key to this progress. However, PPI remained localised and under resourced and there was a reluctance to change working practices which resulted in perceptions of tokenism. Service users faced conflicting expectations and were expected to assimilate rather than challenge the organisation's 'biomedical agenda'. CONCLUSIONS: Service user researchers may play a key role in establishing PPI in a scientific, hierarchical research environment. Adoption of a more democratic approach to involvement would build on the good work already being done and help to transform ...

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 ...

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.