Search

Introduction: Those with severe and enduring mental ill health are at greater risk of long‐term physical health conditions and have a reduced life expectancy as a result. Multiple factors compound this health inequality, and the need for setting research priorities in this area is highlighted with physical and mental healthcare services being separate, and limited multimorbidity research. Methods: The aim of this exercise was to work in partnership with healthcare professionals and carers, family, friends and individuals with lived experience of both mental and physical health conditions, to set research priorities to help people with mental health conditions to look after their physical health. The exercise was guided by the James Lind Alliance approach. For this, a steering group was set up, two surveys were completed and a final priority workshop was conducted. Results: This priority setting exercise guided by people's needs and lived experience has produced a set of well‐defined research topics. Initially, 555 research questions were suggested in the first survey, which were refined to 54 questions for the second survey. A priority setting workshop was then conducted to get the final 10 priorities. Conclusions: Taking these topics forward to improve services and treatment for both mental and physical ill health may in turn improve physical health and lessen the reduced life expectancy of those living with mental ill health. Patient or Public Contribution: This work was completed in collaboration with people who have lived experience of mental ill health and physical health conditions, as well as carers, family and friends. Their contribution has been significant for this work from piloting surveys, amending language used and educating the researchers and contributing to this paper. The initial work was completed with a steering group and continued with surveys and workshops. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Co‐production with communities is increasingly seen as best practice that can improve the quality, relevance and effectiveness of research and service delivery. Despite this promising position, there remains uncertainty around definitions of co‐production and how to operationalize it. The current paper describes the development of a co‐production strategy to guide the work of the ActEarly multistakeholder preventative research programme to improve children's health in Bradford and Tower Hamlets, UK. Methods: The strategy used Appreciative Inquiry (AI), an approach following a five‐step iterative process: to define (Step 1) scope and guide progress; to discover (Step 2) key issues through seven focus groups (N = 36) and eight in‐depth interviews with key stakeholders representing community groups, and the voluntary and statutory sectors; to dream (Step 3) best practice through two workshops with AI participants to review findings; to design (Step 4) a co‐production strategy building on AI findings and to deliver (Step 5) the practical guidance in the strategy. Results: Nine principles for how to do co‐production well were identified: power should be shared; embrace a wide range of perspectives and skills; respect and value the lived experience; benefits should be for all involved parties; go to communities and do not expect them to come to you; work flexibly; avoid jargon and ensure availability of the right information; relationships should be built for the long‐term; co‐production activities should be adequately resourced. These principles were based on three underlying values of equality, reciprocity and agency. Conclusion: The empirical insights of the paper highlight the crucial importance of adequate resources and infrastructure to deliver effective co‐production. This documentation of one approach to operationalizing co‐production serves to avert any misappropriations of the term 'co‐production' by listening to service users, stakeholders and other relevant groups, to develop trust and long‐term relationships, and build on the learning that already exists amongst such groups. Patient or Public Contribution: The work was overseen by a steering group (N = 17) of individuals, both professional and members of the public with experience in undertaking co‐production, and/or with some knowledge of the context of the two ActEarly field sites, who provided regular oversight and feedback on the AI process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]