Soklaridis Sophie, Harris Holly, Shier Rowen, Rovet Jordana, Black Georgia, Bellissimo Gail, Gruszecki Sam, Lin Elizabeth, Di Giandomenico Anna
Department of Education, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 1025 Queen St. West, Toronto, ON, M6J 1H1, Canada.
Res Involv Engagem. 2024 Mar 7;10(1):30. doi: 10.1186/s40900-024-00561-7.
In the context of mental health research, co-production involves people with lived expertise, those with professional or academic expertise, and people with both of these perspectives collaborating to design and actualize research initiatives. In the literature, two dominant perspectives on co-production emerge. The first is in support of co-production, pointing to the transformative value of co-production for those involved, the quality of services developed through this process, as well as to broader system-level impacts (e.g. influencing changes in health system decision making, care practices, government policies, etc.). The second stance expresses scepticism about the capacity of co-production to engender genuine collaboration given the deeply ingrained power imbalances in the systems in which we operate. While some scholars have explored the intersections of these two perspectives, this body of literature remains limited.
This paper contributes to the literature base by exploring the nuances of co-production in health research. Using our mental health participatory action research project as a case example, we explore the nuances of co-production through four key values that we embraced: 1. Navigating power relations together 2. Multi-directional learning 3. Slow and steady wins the race 4. Connecting through vulnerability CONCLUSIONS: By sharing these values and associated principles and practices, we invite readers to consider the complexities of co-production and explore how our experiences may inform their practice of co-production. Despite the inherent complexity of co-production, we contend that pursuing authentic and equitable collaborations is integral to shaping a more just and inclusive future in mental health research and the mental health system at large.
在心理健康研究背景下，共同生产涉及有实际经验的人、有专业或学术专长的人以及兼具这两种视角的人共同合作来设计和实施研究项目。在文献中，出现了两种关于共同生产的主要观点。第一种观点支持共同生产，指出共同生产对参与者的变革性价值、通过这一过程开发的服务质量以及更广泛的系统层面影响（例如影响卫生系统决策、护理实践、政府政策等方面的变化）。第二种立场对共同生产能否促成真正的合作表示怀疑，因为我们所处的系统中存在根深蒂固的权力不平衡。虽然一些学者探讨了这两种观点的交叉点，但这方面的文献仍然有限。
本文通过探讨健康研究中共同生产的细微差别，为文献库做出了贡献。以我们的心理健康参与式行动研究项目为例，我们通过所秉持的四个关键价值观来探讨共同生产的细微差别：1. 共同应对权力关系 2. 多向学习 3. 稳扎稳打才能赢 4. 通过脆弱性建立联系 结论：通过分享这些价值观以及相关的原则和实践，我们邀请读者思考共同生产的复杂性，并探索我们的经验如何为他们的共同生产实践提供参考。尽管共同生产具有内在的复杂性，但我们认为追求真实和公平的合作对于塑造心理健康研究乃至整个心理健康系统中更公正、更包容的未来至关重要。
