Search

Background: A Learning Health System (LHS) is a model of how routinely collected health data can be used to improve care, creating 'virtuous cycles' between data and improvement. This requires the active involvement of health service stakeholders, including patients themselves. However, to date, research has explored the acceptability of being 'data donors' rather than considering patients as active contributors. The study aimed to understand how patients should be actively involved in an LHS. Design: Ten participatory codesign workshops were conducted with eight experienced public contributors using visual, collective and iterative methods. This led contributors to challenge and revise not only the idea of an LHS but also revise the study aims and outputs. Results: The contributors proposed three exemplar roles for patients in patient‐driven LHS, which aligned with the idea of three forms of transparency: informational, participatory and accountability. 'Epistemic injustice' was considered a useful concept to express the risks of an LHS that did not provide active roles to patients (testimonial injustice) and that neglected their experience through collecting data that did not reflect the complexity of their lives (hermeneutic injustice). Discussion: Patient involvement in an LHS should be 'with and by' patients, not 'about or for'. This requires systems to actively work with and respond to patient feedback, as demonstrated within the study itself by the adaptive approach to responding to contributor questions, to work in partnership with patients to create a 'virtuous alliance' to achieve change. Patient or Public Contribution: Public contributors were active partners throughout, and co‐authored the paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Community-based young offenders are at high risk of self-harm and unlikely to be in contact with mental health services. Semi-structured interviews with community youth justice staff and a content analysis of 50 records of self-harm not only revealed staff concerns about the impact of stigma on disclosure and service use, but also found dismissive attitudes towards socially motivated self-harm, which was equated with lower suicide risk and less emotional distress. Efforts to improve identification of self-harm will need to address the perceived – and false – distinction between ‘genuine’ and socially motivated self-harm. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]