Goldsmith Lucy Pollyanna, Morshead Rosaleen, McWilliam Charlotte, Forbes Gordon, Ussher Michael, Simpson Alan, Lucock Mike, Gillard Steve
Population Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Pragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Front Sociol. 2019 Mar 29;4:21. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2019.00021. eCollection 2019.
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.
鉴于“没有我们的参与就没有关于我们的决策”这一宣言(查尔顿,2000年),对共同生产以及共同开展研究的兴趣正在不断扩大。在确立共同生产的原则(希基等人,2018年)以及高质量参与的原则(参与组织,2013年;4Pi,2015年)方面已经取得了良好进展,并描述了其在心理健康研究中的实际运作方式(吉拉德等人,2012年a、b,2013年)。在已发表的文献中,共同生产在定性研究项目中效果良好,这类项目往往在方法上具有灵活性。然而,要改变英国的治疗指南,例如国家卫生与临床优化研究所的指南,并影响服务委托,还需要高质量的定量研究。这类研究的特点是有正式的方法规则,这给共同生产的范围带来了挑战。在本文中,我们描述了在设计和开展一项关于心理健康同伴支持的共同生产的随机对照试验时所面临的重大挑战以及我们采取的解决方案。鉴于随机对照试验在方法上的严格性,明确哪些方法和实际决策及流程可以共同生产、由谁来共同生产以及如何共同生产,对于随着项目推进和团队扩大我们正在进行的共同生产至关重要。为共同生产所需的支持性对话、反思和文化创造并维持空间也至关重要。本文旨在让该领域众多开展知识共同生产的人能够了解我们的经验教训。