The importance and value of involvement of people with lived experience of suicide has been recognized in suicide research and prevention. Nonetheless, clear guidance on research collaboration and co-production is lacking. This study aimed to address this gap by developing a set of guidelines on active involvement of people with lived experience of suicide in suicide studies., i.e., conducting research with or by people with lived experience, rather than to, about or for them.
The Delphi method was used to determine statements on best practice for the active involvement of people with lived experience of suicide in suicide research. Statements were compiled through a systematic search of the scientific and grey literature, and reviewing qualitative data from a recent related study conducted by the authors. Two expert panels: people with lived experience of suicide (n = 44) and suicide researchers (n = 29) rated statements over three rounds of an online survey. Statements endorsed by at least 80% of panellists of each panel were included in the guidelines.
Panellists endorsed 96 out of 126 statements in 17 sections covering the full research cycle from deciding on the research question and securing funding, to conducting research and disseminating and implementing outcomes. Overall, there was a substantial level of agreement between the two panels regarding support from research institutions, collaboration and co-production, communication and shared decision making, conducting research, self-care, acknowledgment, and dissemination and implementation. However, panels also disagreed on specific statements regarding representativeness and diversity, managing expectations, time and budgeting, training, and self-disclosure.
This study identified consensus recommendations on active involvement of people with lived experience of suicide in suicide research, including co-production. Support from research institutions and funders, and training on co-production for researchers and people with lived experience, are needed for successful implementation and uptake of the guidelines.

Authorship of academic papers is a currency that can bring career advantages in academia and other industries. How authorship should be decided is not always clear, particularly in co-produced research with non-academic collaborators, for which existing authorship guidelines are largely silent. In this paper, we critically reflect on what constitutes written authorship in the context of co-produced health research. We present examples from our own work to illustrate the argument we make, including publishing a co-authored paper with non-academic partners. We consider questions of what constitutes authorship and how it is mutually understood. We discuss some of the opportunities and limits to participation and how these might translate into academic authorship as a collaborative research output. Finally, we explore the potential of authorship guidelines as a resource for critical reflection on what we mean by co-produced work and how we recognise contributions to global health research. We suggest that authorship guidelines should be adapted to encourage attribution of co-produced research to include non-academic as well as academic collaborators, and we provide a draft guideline for how this might be done.

Technology can be helpful in supporting people with dementia in their daily lives. However, people with dementia are often not fully involved in the development process of new technology. This lack of involvement of people with dementia in developing technology-based interventions can lead to the implementation of faulty and less suitable technology.
This systematic review aims to evaluate current approaches and create best practice guidelines for involving people with dementia in developing technology-based interventions.
A systematic search was conducted in January 2019 in the following databases: EMBASE (Excerpta Medica database), PsycINFO, MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), CINAHL (Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and Web of Science. The search strategy included search terms in 3 categories: dementia, technology, and involvement in development. Narrative synthesis wove the evidence together in a structured approach.
A total of 21 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies involved people with dementia in a single phase, such as development (n=10), feasibility and piloting (n=7), or evaluation (n=1). Only 3 studies described involvement in multiple phases. Frequently used methods for assessing involvement included focus groups, interviews, observations, and user tests.
Most studies concluded that it was both necessary and feasible to involve people with dementia, which can be optimized by having the right prerequisites in place, ensuring that technology meets standards of reliability and stability, and providing a positive research experience for participants. Best practice guidelines for the involvement of people with dementia in developing technology-based interventions are described.

BACKGROUND: C3-Cloud is an integrated care ICT infrastructure offering seamless patient-centered approach to managing multimorbidity, deployed in three European pilot sites. Challenge: The digital delivery of best practice guidelines unified for multimorbidity, customized to local practice, offering the capability to improve patient personalization and benefit.
METHODS: C3-Cloud has adopted a co-production approach to developing unified multimorbidity guidelines, by collating and reconciling best practice guidelines for each condition. Clinical and technical teams at pilot sites and the C3-Cloud consortium worked in tandem to create the specification and technical implementation.
RESULTS: C3-Cloud offers CDSS for diabetes, renal failure, depression and congenital heart failure, with over 300 rules and checks that deliver four best practice guidelines in parallel, customized for each pilot site.
CONCLUSIONS: The process provided a traceable, maintainable and audited digitally delivered collated and reconciled guidelines.