Search

Non‐consumer researchers collaborating with consumer researchers can benefit from greater relevance of research and improved congruence between research processes and health policy. As with all research collaborations, such partnerships are both constrained and facilitated by research ecosystems. However, it seems that collaborations with consumer researchers are impacted in particular ways by the research ecosystem. Drawing on ecological systems theory, this study aims to improve understandings of how ecological structures impact collaborations between non‐consumer and consumer researchers. Interviews were conducted with 11 non‐consumer researchers from a range of mental health disciplines about their experiences collaborating with consumer researchers. One theme developed through analysis of the data set related to the research ecosystem. Data from this theme were extracted and discursively analysed using the principles of discursive psychology. Findings emphasize distinct factors that influence collaborations at each level of the ecosystem, encompassing both local research culture and broader research systems. Findings suggest that external pressures (such as deadlines for funding applications, or bureaucratic processes) from the broader ecosystemic levels need to be challenged at the local collaboration level. Non‐consumer researchers might support collaborations through, for instance, working to create enhanced flexibility in research timelines, or making time for relationship building, thus fostering more meaningful collaborations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Collaboration between researchers who have lived experience of mental illness and services (consumer researchers) and mental health researchers without (other mental health researchers) is an emergent development in research. Inclusion of consumer perspectives is crucial to ensuring the ethics, relevancy and validity of mental health research; yet widespread and embedded consumer collaboration of this nature is known to be impeded by attitudinal and organisational factors. Limited research describes consumer researchers' experiences of barriers. Other mental health researchers are key players in the co-production process yet there is also a paucity of research reporting their views on barriers to collaborating with consumers. Aims: To explore other researchers' views and experiences on partnering with consumer mental health researchers in Australia and New Zealand. Methods: Exploratory qualitative design. Eleven semi-structured interviews were conducted with mental health researchers. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. Results: Four themes concerning barriers to collaborating with consumers (hierarchies, status quo, not understanding, paternalism), and one theme on addressing the barriers (constantly chipping away) were identified. Conclusions: It is suggested that multifaceted strategies for advancing collaboration with consumers are most effective. It is imperative to attend to several barriers simultaneously to redress the inherent power disparity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Services users are becoming actively involved in mental health research. How this is perceived by other researchers is not well known. The aim of this article is to review the international literature exploring other mental health researchers' views of service users conducting research, between 1996 and 2016. Searches of multiple databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Google Scholar) were undertaken. Combinations of terms related to service user research and mental health researcher perspectives, views, and attitudes were used. Manual inquiry of reference lists was also undertaken. Relevant papers were coded by topic, location, study design, and other dimensions. Five articles met inclusion criteria. Most referred to perceived benefits, such as greater validity of research findings, challenges of collaborating with service users, and the validity of research findings. There was some evidence of more openness to mental health service users providing suggestions, preferably in early stages of the research process. Reluctance to co-research with service users was reported. There is limited research directly addressing other mental health researchers' views about service user research; barriers to inclusion (whether involvement, co-production or user-controlled) and creating incongruence with health policy statements. Further research to more fully understand these attitudes and how they might be influenced is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accessible summary: What is known of the subject: Consumer participation in mental health services is an expectation articulated through mental health policy.Consumers as researchers could contribute significantly to mental health services. Barriers to participation are significant and limit consumer involvement. What the paper adds to existing knowledge: Enhanced understandings of collaborative relationships between consumer and nonconsumer researchers.Researchers from the health disciplines find value in consumer involvement in mental health research.These researchers can support and facilitate consumer research by being allies to consumer researchers. What are the implications for practice: Understanding the role of allies is necessary to strengthen their capacity to support consumer researchers.Involving consumers in mental health research is likely to lead to improved practice. Introduction: Australia and New Zealand mental health policy requires consumer participation in all aspects of mental health services. Systemic participation informs and improves the quality of mental health services. Collaboration with consumer researchers should be similarly required. Enhanced understandings of collaborations are needed. Aim: To enhance understanding of the perspectives and experiences of nonconsumer researchers in working collaboratively with consumers as researchers. Method: This qualitative exploratory study involved interviews with nonconsumer mental health researchers who have worked collaboratively with consumers in research. Interviews were conducted with participants from Australia and New Zealand. Results: "Allyship" emerged as a major theme. This describes nonconsumer researchers playing an actively supportive role to facilitate opportunities for the development and growth of consumer research roles and activities. Seven subthemes were identified: establishing and supporting roles, corralling resources, guiding navigation of university systems, advocacy at multiple levels, aspiring to coproduction and consumer‐led research, extending connections and partnerships, and desire to do better. Discussion: Allyship may have an important role to play in the broader consumer research agenda and requires further consideration. Implications for practice: Embedding meaningful consumer participation within mental health services requires active consumer involvement in research. Allies can play an important facilitative role. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A crucial development resulting from consumer involvement in mental health services has been engagement as active participants in mental health research, often conducted in collaboration with mental health researchers representing the health disciplines (referred to in this paper as 'other' researchers). Despite progress in mental health consumer research, unequal power relations continue to pose a major barrier. Although power issues are discussed in the literature, there is little research from the perspective of other mental health researchers who have collaborated with consumers on research projects. This qualitative study explored other mental health researchers' perspectives on the role of power in collaborative research with consumers. Semi-structured interviews were completed with 11 other mental health researchers. Thematic analysis of the transcript version of interview recordings was conducted. The findings were grounded in 'the table' as a literal and metaphorical site of power relations. The umbrella theme was prominence and presence (of consumers) at the table, followed by subthemes on barriers (tokenism, undermined potential) and surmounting them through reworking power (critical mass and openness to power dynamics). Overall it was found that while there continue to be significant power-related barriers to further building of robust collaborative research with consumers in mental health, there are several avenues that should be considered, much more assertively, to disrupt and transcend them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]