Research Division, Institute of Mental Health, Buangkok, Singapore.
SUCCEED Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe, South Africa.
Community Ment Health J. 2023 Jul;59(5):819-825. doi: 10.1007/s10597-023-01118-w. Epub 2023 Mar 20.
Within psychiatric research fields, there has been a marked uptick of interest in service user involvement in recent years. Nevertheless, it is often unclear how robust or impactful common forms of inclusion are, and the extent to which they have included individuals with psychosis. Using collective auto-ethnography, this paper describes the experiences of 8 academic and non-academic members of the 'lived experience' and participatory research workgroup of a global psychosis Commission and our navigation of power and power hierarchies, differences in background and training, and multiple vectors of identity, diversity, and privilege. We conclude that the realities of "involvement" are much messier, more fraught, and less intrinsically empowering than often signaled in calls for involvement and co-production. We nevertheless stress the power of collective dialogue and support-between and among a pluralistic group-and of honesty and transparency about challenges, barriers, and the colonial underpinnings and geopolitics of global mental health.
在精神医学研究领域,近年来服务使用者参与的兴趣显著增加。然而,通常不清楚常见的参与形式有多稳健或有影响力,以及它们在多大程度上包括了患有精神病的个体。本文使用集体自传体民族志,描述了全球精神病委员会“生活体验”和参与性研究工作组的 8 名学术和非学术成员的经历,以及我们对权力和权力等级、背景和培训差异以及多种身份、多样性和特权的驾驭。我们的结论是,“参与”的现实比呼吁参与和共同生产所表明的要混乱得多、复杂得多,而且内在赋权的程度也低得多。然而,我们强调集体对话和支持的力量——在多元化的群体之间和之中——以及对挑战、障碍以及全球心理健康的殖民基础和地缘政治的诚实和透明。