Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Health Expect. 2024 Oct;27(5):e70014. doi: 10.1111/hex.70014.
Guidance on co-production between researchers and people with lived experience was published in 2018 by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) advisory group, previously known as INVOLVE. This guidance described sharing power as a key principle within co-production. Authentic sharing of power within co-produced mental health research does not always occur however and remains a challenge to achieve within many projects.
To explore what has been learned about the sharing of power in co-production within mental health research since the publication of these guidelines, by synthesising qualitative literature relating to power within co-produced mental health research.
We carried out a systematic review with thematic synthesis. We searched CINHAL, Embase and PubMed databases to identify qualitative or mixed-method studies relating to power within co-produced mental health research. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers for inclusion and appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool (CASP) for qualitative research.
We identified nine papers that met the criteria for inclusion and were included in the synthesis. Three themes were generated: (1) Battling to share power against a more powerful system, (2) Empowerment through relationships and (3) The journey is turbulent, but it is not supposed to be smooth.
Results highlight that power is pervasive, especially within the hierarchical systems research is often conducted within. Sharing power within co-produced mental health research is an ongoing complex process that is not intended to be easy. Respectful trusting relationships can help facilitate power sharing. However, ultimately meaningful change needs to come from research funders, universities and NHS providers.
The study authors include a lived experience researcher who contributed to the review design, analysis and write-up.
国家卫生与保健卓越研究所（NIHR）顾问小组（前身为 INVOLVE）于 2018 年发布了关于研究人员与有过生活体验的人之间共同创作的指南。该指南将权力共享描述为共同创作的关键原则。然而，共同创作的心理健康研究中并不总是能真正实现权力共享，在许多项目中实现这一目标仍然是一个挑战。
通过综合与共同创作的心理健康研究中权力相关的定性文献，探讨自这些指南发布以来，在共同创作的心理健康研究中权力共享方面的经验教训。
我们进行了系统评价和主题综合。我们在 CINHAL、Embase 和 PubMed 数据库中进行了搜索，以确定与共同创作的心理健康研究中权力相关的定性或混合方法研究。研究由两名评审员独立筛选纳入，并使用定性研究的批判性评估技巧方案工具（CASP）进行评估。
我们确定了符合纳入标准的九篇论文，并将其纳入综合分析。生成了三个主题：（1）与更强大的系统作斗争以共享权力，（2）通过关系获得赋权，以及（3）旅程动荡，但不应一帆风顺。
结果表明，权力是普遍存在的，尤其是在研究经常进行的层级系统中。共同创作的心理健康研究中的权力共享是一个持续复杂的过程，并不容易。相互尊重的信任关系可以帮助促进权力共享。然而，最终需要来自研究资助者、大学和 NHS 提供者的有意义的变革。
研究作者包括一位有过生活体验的研究人员，他参与了审查设计、分析和撰写。
