‘ Co‐Production Is Caring ’
Young People's Reflections on Responsible and Dialogic Co‐Production in Youth Mental Health
Bibliographic Data
BACKGROUND: While co-production is increasingly emphasised in youth mental health research, few studies have explored how young people themselves conceptualise and evaluate responsible and dialogic co-production. Understanding young people's perspectives is essential to ensure that participation is meaningful and protective, rather than tokenistic or exploitative. This paper offers a retrospective reflection on a 3-year UK youth mental health programme that embedded youth involvement and co-production from the outset, at multiple levels (research participation, advisory and leadership). OBJECTIVE: This study examines how young people involved in a UK youth mental health research articulate, from their own perspective, what counts as 'meaningful co-production', centring its responsible, relational and dialogic dimensions. DESIGN: A Qualitative Secondary Analysis was undertaken, applying Reflexive Thematic Analysis to explore patterns and meanings in participant accounts. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Data comprised responses from five young people (three females and two males; M = 21 years, SD = 2.74) via an online open-ended survey, and a focus group with eight young people (seven females and one male; M = 25.63 years, SD = 3.03). All participants had lived experience and were under 24 years old when they began their involvement in the youth mental health research programme on which this study is based. RESULTS: Two central themes emerged: (1) 'We just want to be cared about': Co-production is caring and (2) 'Please, show up as a person, not as a "researcher"': Co-production as a dialogic process. Young people emphasised that meaningful co-production, in youth mental health, is relational and affective (i.e., rooted in emotional care, mutual respect, flexibility and dialogue) and that the living experience of mental health is continuous and demands sensitivity. DISCUSSION: These insights challenge procedural or ritualistic approaches to participation. Instead, they foreground care, reflexivity, power sharing and researcher presence as ethical prerequisites of co-production. The results align with Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) principles, highlighting the need to embed structural supports for emotional safety and relational engagement from the outset. CONCLUSIONS: Meaningful co-production in youth mental health research requires embedding relational ethics into design and practice, ensuring young people are engaged as whole persons and partners. This model moves beyond procedural inclusion towards genuinely participatory research. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Young people with lived experience co-designed the study materials, co-facilitated the focus group, contributed to the interpretation and co-authored the manuscript-ensuring that their perspectives are central to the study. Young people with lived experience of mental health were central to this study. Members of the programme's Young People's Advisory Group (YPAG) contributed to the design of the survey and focus group materials, ensuring they were youth-friendly and relevant. Two YPAG members co-facilitated the focus group alongside the first author, actively shaping the data collection process. Their insights and perspectives also informed the interpretation of the data, particularly in refining how themes captured relational and dialogic aspects of co-production. Additionally, these two YPAG members are co-authors of the manuscript, contributing to the conceptual framing, reflexivity and clarity of the results, ensuring that the work authentically reflects youth perspectives
CLARITY · Dialogic · Focus group · Lived experience · Mental health · Reflexivity · Counseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics · Mental Health and Patient Involvement · Participatory Visual Research Methods
Dialogic
Secondary analysis of qualitative data
Lost in the shadows
Thematic Analysis
Thematic analysis.
Thematic Analysis
Toward good practice in thematic analysis
Co-producing knowledge in health and social care research
‘You want to deal with power while riding on power’
A collective autoethnography of coproduction in mental health research by academic researchers and young people in Brazil
A Compass for Navigating Relationships in Co-Production Processes Involving Vulnerable Populations
Cadê o Kauê? Co‐design and acceptability testing of a chat‐story aimed at enhancing youth participation in the promotion of mental health in Brazil
‘Place’, ‘space’ and ‘dialogue’
Conducting secondary analysis of qualitative data
To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales
Co-production
Engaging youth in research planning, design and execution
A qualitative study exploring the benefits of involving young people in mental health research
Implementation of a youth‐adult partnership model in youth mental health systems research
The burden of proof
Coproducing an Ecological Momentary Assessment Measurement Burst Mental Health Study With Young People
Co‐producing research with youth
Measuring the impact of participatory research in psychiatry
A qualitative evaluation of coproduction of research
Youth engagement in mental health research
An umbrella review of reviews on challenges to meaningful adolescent involvement in health research
Exploring the Relationship (and Power Dynamic) Between Researchers and Public Partners Working Together in Applied Health Research Teams
Exploring the value and role of creative practices in research co-production
One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis
User Involvement in Research and Evaluation
The Participatory Zeitgeist
Te Tapatoru
The ‘co’ in co-production of climate action
The Politics of 'people with lived experience' Experiential Authority and the Risks of Strategic Essentialism
What About Focus Group Interaction Data
Revisiting Qualitative Data Reuse
A Qualitative Framework for Collecting and Analyzing Data in Focus Group Research
Qualitative Quality
| Unique citing works | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1 |
| Citation span | 2026 - 2026 (1) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 1 |