Co-producing Randomized Controlled Trials
How Do We Work Together
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 13077166 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Lucy Goldsmith (0000-0002-6934-1925, St George's, University of London, corresponding author), Rosaleen Morshead (0000-0003-0741-0750, St George's, University of London), Charlotte McWilliam (St George's, University of London), Gordon Forbes (0000-0002-6631-3785, Queen Mary University of London), Michael Ussher (0000-0002-0995-7955, St George's, University of London), Alan Simpson (0000-0003-3286-9846, King's College London), Mike Lucock (0000-0003-0968-5475, University of Huddersfield), Steve Gillard (0000-0002-9686-2232, St George's, University of London) |
| Year | 2019 |
| Volume | 4 |
| Pages | 21-21 |
| Publication date | 2019-03-29 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Frontiers in Sociology (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2297-7775 • E-ISSN: 2297-7775 |
| Publisher | Frontiers Media (PUBLISHER • CH) |
| DOI | 10.3389/fsoc.2019.00021 |
| PMID | 33869347 |
| OpenAlex | W2930107518 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 9 |
| References cited | 29 |
In the light of the declaration "Nothing about us without us" (Charlton, 2000), interest in co-production, and coproduced research is expanding. Good work has been done establishing principles for co-production (Hickey et al., 2018) and for good quality involvement (Involve, 2013; 4Pi, 2015) and describing how this works in practice in mental health research (Gillard et al., 2012a,b, 2013). In the published literature, co-production has worked well in qualitative research projects in which there is often methodological flexibility. However, to change treatment guidelines in the UK, e.g., the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, and influence service commissioning, high quality quantitative research is also needed. This type of research is characterized by formal methodological rules, which pose challenges for the scope of co-production. In this paper we describe the significant challenges and solutions we adopted to design and deliver a coproduced randomized controlled trial of mental health peer support. Given the methodological rigidity of a randomized controlled trial, establishing clearly which methodological and practical decisions and processes can be coproduced, by whom, and how, has been vital to our ongoing co-production as the project has progressed and the team has expanded. Creating and maintaining space for the supported dialogue, reflection, and culture that co-production requires has been vital. This paper aims to make our learning accessible to a wide audience of people developing co-production of knowledge in this field
Coproduction · Excellence · Flexibility (engineering · Management · Mental health · Political science · Project commissioning · Public relations · Publishing · Scope (computer science · Sociology · Teamwork · Computer Science · Health Policy Implementation Science · Medicine · Mental Health and Patient Involvement · Schizophrenia research and treatment
Meta‐Research on the Science of Lived Experience Engagement in Mental Health and Substance Use Health Research
Co-creation solutions and the three Co’s framework for applying Co-creation
Co-production
Planning for the development of strength and conditioning coaches’ psychosocial competencies
Exploring the impact of engagement in mental health and substance use research
Tools and Resources for Engaging People With Lived and Living Experience and Caregivers in Mental Health and Substance Use Research
Predictors of engagement with peer support
Empowered service users
How Black and Latino young men who have sex with men in the United States experience and engage with eligibility criteria and recruitment practices
The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care
Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?
Analysing the dialogic turn in the communication of research-based knowledge
Co‐researching with people with learning disabilities
A systematic review of qualitative studies of adults’ experiences of being assessed for psychological therapies
Perceptions of User Involvement
Shifting the Focus
The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale
Producing different analytical narratives, coproducing integrated analytical narrative
An equality of condition framework for user involvement in mental health policy and planning
Service user/survivor-led research in mental health
Evaluating Explicit and Implicit Stigma of Mental Illness in Mental Health Professionals and Medical Students
Patient and Public Involvement in the Coproduction of Knowledge
Embodied Action, Enacted Bodies
| Unique citing works | 9 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1.8 |
| Citation span | 2021 - 2026 (6) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 9 |