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]

Background: Receiving and accessing care after a diagnosis of dementia, both for the person and their carer, are fraught with inequalities. The aim of this public engagement activity was to co‐produce a board game about dementia inequalities to facilitate learning, dialogue and educate about different barriers, and facilitators, to diagnosis and care and to test the game's impact on dementia knowledge with the general public. Methods: Two virtual and two face‐to‐face workshops with people with dementia, unpaid carers, health and social care professionals and Third Sector representatives were held between October 2022 and June 2023. Virtual workshops involved discussions of inequalities and how a board game may feature inequalities. The first face‐to‐face workshop was split into the same activities, aided by outcomes from workshops 1 and 2. Workshop 4 attendees tested the prototype. The impact of the game on knowledge about dementia and inequalities was tested at a game play workshop in October 2023. Results: Forty stakeholders attended four workshops. Workshops provided step‐by‐step thoughts on how the game could be designed or modified. The final game, prototype tested in workshop 4, consists of a one‐sided, two‐half board depicting the prediagnosis process (left half) and postdiagnosis process (right half). Fifty‐two members of the general public participated in the game play workshop, which led to significant improvements in knowledge about dementia (p <.001) and inequalities (p <.001). Discussion: The game can be used to improve knowledge about dementia inequalities for health and social care professionals, carers, people living with dementia, decision makers and the general public. Patient or Public Contribution: This engagement activity fully involved people with dementia, unpaid carers, health and social care professionals and Third Sector representatives throughout, with two unpaid carers as public advisers on the team. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: It is increasingly recognised by UK researchers and population health advocates that an important impetus to effective policy action to address health inequalities is activation of public dialogue about the social determinants of health and how inequalities might be addressed. The limited body of existing scholarship reaches varying conclusions on public preferences for responding to health inequalities but with consensus around the importance of tackling poverty. Young people's perspectives remain underexplored despite their increasingly visible role in activism across a range of policy issues and the potential impact of widening inequalities on their generation's health and wellbeing. Methods: Six groups of young people (39 in total) from two UK cities (Glasgow and Leeds) were engaged in online workshops to explore views on health inequalities and potential solutions. Inspired by calls to employ notions of utopia, artist–facilitators and researchers supported participants to explore the evidence, debating solutions and imagining a more desirable society, using visual and performance art. Drawing together data from discussions and creative outputs, we analysed participants' perspectives on addressing health inequalities across four domains: governance, environment, society/culture and economy. Findings: Proposals ranged from radical, whole‐systems change to support for policies currently being considered by governments across the United Kingdom. The consensus was built around embracing more participatory, collaborative governance; prioritising sustainability and access to greenspace; promoting inclusivity and eliminating discrimination and improving the circumstances of those on the lowest incomes. Levels of acceptable income inequality, and how best to address income inequality were more contested. Individual‐level interventions were rarely presented as viable options for addressing the social inequalities from which health differences emanate. Conclusion: Young people contributed wide‐ranging and visionary solutions to debates around addressing the enduring existence of health inequalities in the United Kingdom. Their reflections signal support for 'upstream' systemic change to achieve reductions in social inequalities and the health differences that flow from these. Public Contribution: An advisory group of young people informed the development of project plans. Participants shaped the direction of the project in terms of substantive focus and were responsible for the generation of creative project outputs aimed at influencing policymakers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Clinical trials must include diverse participants to ensure the wide applicability of results. However, people from ethnic minorities are included in clinical trials at rates lower than expected given their share of the population. Working with South Riverside Community Development Centre (SRCDC), Talking Trials used public engagement to foster discussions around the underrepresentation of those from minority ethnic communities in clinical trials and to identify and address concerns surrounding trial participation. Methods: We conducted three workshops with 13 co‐researchers from minority ethnic backgrounds. We explored perceptions and understanding of clinical trials alongside participatory art activities to help move away from verbocentric methods of communication. These artworks formed an exhibition that was presented to the community, prompting further discussions and engagement. Findings: Co‐production workshops were an effective tool to introduce the public to trial research. With little knowledge of clinical trials at the beginning of the process, our co‐researchers formed a cohesive group, sharing initial fears and mistrust towards trials. As conversations progressed these attitudes clearly shifted. Artwork produced during the workshops was incorporated into an exhibition. Quotes and creative pieces from the group were included to reflect the themes identified. Presenting the exhibition at Riverside Festival enabled further engagement with a wider diverse community. The focus on co‐production helped build a network of individuals new to research and keen to become involved further. Conclusion: Inclusive and democratic co‐production, enriched by participatory art practices, provided a powerful means of enabling our group to create new insights and foster new relationships. Projects like Talking Trials can diversify the research process itself—for example, four co‐researchers have commenced lay research partner roles on trial management groups and a lay advisory group is in development. Patient or Public Contribution: Three members of staff at SRCDC were on the project delivery group and involved in the initial project design, subsequently helping to connect us with members of the Riverside community to work as co‐researchers. Two of the SRCDC staff are co‐authors of this manuscript. The project had 13 public co‐researchers guiding the direction of this research and creating the artwork displayed in the art exhibition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objective: There is a need for better integration of services across communities and sectors for people living with traumatic brain injury (TBI) to meet their complex needs. Building on insights gained from earlier pilot work, here we report the outcomes of a participatory workshop that sought to better understand the challenges, barriers and opportunities that currently exist within the care pathway for survivors of TBI. Methods: A diverse range of stakeholders from the acute and rehabilitation care pathway and the health and social care system were invited to participate in a 3‐h workshop. The participants worked in four mixed subgroups using practice development methodology, which promotes person‐centred, inclusive and participatory action. Results: Thematic analysis identified shared purposes and values that were used to produce a detailed implementation and impact framework for application at both the level of the care interface and the overarching integrated care system. A variety of enablers were identified that related to collective values and behaviours, case management, team leadership and integrated team working, workforce capability, evidence‐based practice and resourcing. The clinical, economic, cultural and social outcomes associated with these enablers were also identified, and included patient safety, independence and well‐being, reduced waiting times, re‐admission rates, staff retention and professional development. Conclusion: The co‐produced recommendations made within the implementation and impact framework described here provide a means by which the culture and delivery of health and social care services can be better tailored to meet the needs of people living with TBI. We believe that the recommendations will help shape the formation of new services as well as the development of existing ones. Patient or Public Contribution: Patient and public involvement have been established over a 10‐year history of relationship building through a joint forum and events involving three charities representing people with TBI, carers, family members, clinicians, service users, researchers and commissioners, culminating in a politically supported event that identified concerns about the needs of people following TBI. These relationships formed the foundation for the interactive workshop, the focus of this publication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research and clinical outcomes that matter to people with lived experience can significantly differ from those outcomes studied by researchers. To inform a future Cochrane review of suicide and self‐harm prevention interventions, we aimed to work with young people with relevant lived experience to agree on priority outcomes. Design: Four participatory codesign workshops were completed across two sites (New Zealand, United Kingdom) with 28 young people in total. We iteratively adapted the methods over the course of the study. Results: 'Improved coping' and 'safer/more accepting environment to disclose' were the final top‐rated outcomes. 'Reduction of self‐harm' was considered a low priority as it could be misleading, stigmatizing and was considered a secondary consequence of other improvements. In contrast to typical research outcomes, young people emphasized the diversity of experience, the dynamic nature of improvement and holistic and asset‐based framing. Methodologically, dialogue using design materials (personas) to thematically explore outcomes was effective in overcoming the initial challenge of disparate quantitative ratings. Discussion: The results will directly inform the development of a Cochrane review, enabling identification of whether and how outcomes of most importance to young people are measured in trials. Rather than producing discrete measurable outcomes that could be easily added to the systematic review, the young people challenged the academic conceptualization of outcomes, with implications for future evidence synthesis and intervention research, and for future codesign. Patient or Public Contribution: Young people with lived experience were codesigners of the outcomes, and their feedback informed iterative changes to the study methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]