背景:关于研究人员与有生活经验的人之间共同生产的指南于2018年由美国国立卫生与护理研究所(NIHR)咨询小组发布,以前称为involve。该指南将分享权力描述为联合制作中的关键原则。然而,在共同制作的心理健康研究中真正的权力分享并不总是发生,在许多项目中仍然是一个挑战。
目的:探讨自本指南发布以来,在精神卫生研究中关于共同生产中的权力共享的知识,通过综合与共同生产的心理健康研究中的权力有关的定性文献。
方法:我们进行了主题综合的系统综述。我们搜索了NHAL,Embase和PubMed数据库,以确定与共同生产的心理健康研究中的权力有关的定性或混合方法研究。研究由两名评审员独立筛选,并使用关键评估技能计划工具(CASP)进行定性研究。
结果:我们确定了9篇符合纳入标准的论文,并纳入了综合。产生了三个主题:(1)与更强大的系统争夺权力,(2)通过关系赋予权力;(3)旅程动荡,但它不应该是光滑的。
结论:结果强调权力无处不在,特别是在分层系统内,研究往往是在内部进行的。在共同生产的心理健康研究中分享权力是一个正在进行的复杂过程,并不容易。尊重信任关系有助于促进权力分享。然而,最终有意义的变革需要来自研究资助者,大学和NHS提供商。
■该研究的作者包括一位为评论设计做出贡献的生活经验研究员,分析和写作。
BACKGROUND: Guidance on co-production between researchers and people with lived experience was published in 2018 by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) advisory group, previously known as INVOLVE. This guidance described sharing
power as a key principle within co-production. Authentic sharing of
power within co-produced mental health research does not always occur however and remains a challenge to achieve within many projects.
OBJECTIVE: To explore what has been learned about the sharing of
power in co-production within mental health research since the publication of these guidelines, by synthesising qualitative literature relating to power within co-produced mental health research.
METHODS: We carried out a systematic review with thematic synthesis. We searched CINHAL, Embase and PubMed databases to identify qualitative or mixed-method studies relating to power within co-produced mental health research. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers for inclusion and appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool (CASP) for qualitative research.
RESULTS: We identified nine papers that met the criteria for inclusion and were included in the synthesis. Three themes were generated: (1) Battling to share power against a more powerful system, (2) Empowerment through relationships and (3) The journey is turbulent, but it is not supposed to be smooth.
CONCLUSIONS: Results highlight that
power is pervasive, especially within the hierarchical systems research is often conducted within. Sharing power within co-produced mental health research is an ongoing complex process that is not intended to be easy. Respectful trusting relationships can help facilitate
power sharing. However, ultimately meaningful change needs to come from research funders, universities and NHS providers.
UNASSIGNED: The study authors include a lived experience researcher who contributed to the review design, analysis and write-up.