Search

Alcohol and other drugs (AOD) use is a significant public health issue and is associated with high mortality and morbidity rates. Despite this, people who use drugs are often reluctant to seek care due to the lack of trauma‐informed treatment and harm reduction treatment options, as well as experiences of stigma and discrimination in health services. Arguably, AOD education that is co‐produced with people who use alcohol and drugs can enhance future health professionals' ability to practice in ways that support the needs of this population. This paper reports on a qualitative co‐evaluation of a co‐produced undergraduate nursing AOD subject. The AOD subject was co‐planned, co‐designed, co‐delivered, and co‐evaluated with experts by experience, who have a lived experience of substance dependence and work as advocates and peer workers. Following the delivery of the subject in 2021 and 2022, focus groups were undertaken with 12 nursing students. Focus group data indicate that the co‐produced subject supported participants to understand and appreciate how stigma impacts on nursing care and how to recognize and undertake 'good' nursing care that was oriented to the needs of service users. Student participants noted that being co‐taught by people who use drugs was particularly powerful for shifting their nursing perspectives on AOD use and nursing care and took learning beyond what could be understood from a book. Findings indicate that co‐produced AOD education can shift nursing students' perceptions of AOD use by providing access to tacit knowledge and embodied equitable and collaborative relationships with people who use drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) is a supervised injecting facility (SIF) where people who inject drugs (PWID) can do so legally, under health professional supervision. The majority of clients have low levels of education and employment, high rates of incarceration and unstable housing and poor social networks, and 70% do not access local health services. These factors increase the risk of poor mental health, and it has been documented that PWID have elevated rates of mood, anxiety, personality and psychotic disorders; post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); and higher rates of trauma exposure, suicidality and self-harm. The current study is the first to investigate the mental health among clients of a SIF. Validated instruments to examine clients' mental health, social networks and trauma histories were administered to 50 frequently attending clients by a mental health nurse. The majority of respondents were unemployed, homeless and had a history of incarceration, and 82% report they had been diagnosed with a mental health problem, but only 24% report they were receiving treatment. Respondents had poor social networks, had poorer mental health symptoms compared to US inpatients and had experienced multiple traumatic events, and a high number of respondents had scores indicative of PTSD. These results highlight the need for mental health clinicians to be employed in SIFs and other drug consumption rooms (DCRs) to assist clients to address their mental health and psychosocial needs, particularly in light of the fact that these services are often the only places these PWID engage with in an ongoing way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Internationally, lead agencies and consumer movements emphasise the need for high-level research participation in mental health. However, evidence suggests that people with lived experience tend to be recruited as subjects rather than as active agents in research, or are consulted in tokenistic ways. Although participatory research has the potential to rectify epistemic disparities, few studies have grappled with how to move from exclusion and tokenism to high-level research participation. This paper describes a qualitative co-evaluation of a co-produced model of research partnership, Raising the Bar, which involved deliberate establishment and facilitation of six participatory research teams, comprising 28 lived experience and 'conventional' mental health researchers. Findings indicate that the theoretical elements of the model set the bar high from the outset, supporting research teams to address inconsistencies in knowledge about participation. It also provided researchers with the competencies and resources to undertake participatory research in egalitarian team structures, and to negotiate new forms of non-traditional research outputs - thereby challenging whom research might be for and how it might be made accessible. Finally, the model shifted collective meanings about research, lending credibility to participatory practices, which came to be seen as essential for meeting the needs of affected communities. Nonetheless, systemic barriers to participatory research remain, and need to be recognised and acted upon to promote a culture that supports high-level research participation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Internationally, lead agencies and consumer movements emphasise the need for high-level research participation in mental health. However, evidence suggests that people with lived experience tend to be recruited as subjects rather than as active agents in research, or are consulted in tokenistic ways. Although participatory research has the potential to rectify epistemic disparities, few studies have grappled with how to move from exclusion and tokenism to high-level research participation. This paper describes a qualitative co-evaluation of a co-produced model of research partnership, Raising the Bar, which involved deliberate establishment and facilitation of six participatory research teams, comprising 28 lived experience and 'conventional' mental health researchers. Findings indicate that the theoretical elements of the model set the bar high from the outset, supporting research teams to address inconsistencies in knowledge about participation. It also provided researchers with the competencies and resources to undertake participatory research in egalitarian team structures, and to negotiate new forms of non-traditional research outputs - thereby challenging whom research might be for and how it might be made accessible. Finally, the model shifted collective meanings about research, lending credibility to participatory practices, which came to be seen as essential for meeting the needs of affected communities. Nonetheless, systemic barriers to participatory research remain, and need to be recognised and acted upon to promote a culture that supports high-level research participation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]