Is co-production working well in recovery colleges? Emergent themes from a systematic narrative review

Karen Louise Bester, A. McGlade, E. Darragh
{"title":"Is co-production working well in recovery colleges? Emergent themes from a systematic narrative review","authors":"Karen Louise Bester, A. McGlade, E. Darragh","doi":"10.1108/jmhtep-05-2021-0046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\n“Co-production” is a process in health and social care wherein service users and practitioners work in partnership. Recovery colleges (RCs) are educational establishments offering mental health education; a cornerstone feature is that courses are designed and delivered in parity by both mental health practitioners and “peers” – people with lived experience of mental illness. This paper aims to consider, through the identification of key themes, whether co-production within RCs is operating successfully.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThe paper is a systematic review of qualitative literature. Relevant concept groups were systematically searched using three bibliographic databases: Medline, Social Care Online and Scopus. Articles were quality appraised and then synthesised through inductive thematic analysis and emergent trends identified.\n\n\nFindings\nSynthesis identified three key themes relating to the impact of co-production in RCs: practitioner attitudes, power dynamics between practitioners and service users, and RCs’ relationships with their host organisations. As a result of RC engagement, traditional practitioner/patient hierarchies were found to be eroding. Practitioners felt they were more person-centred. RCs can model good co-productive practices to their host organisations. The review concluded, with some caveats, that RC co-production was of high fidelity.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nRC research is growing, but the body of evidence remains relatively small. Most of what exists examine the impact of RCs on individuals’ overall recovery and mental health; there is a limited empirical investigation into whether their flagship feature of parity between peers and practitioners is genuine.\n","PeriodicalId":75090,"journal":{"name":"The journal of mental health training, education, and practice","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of mental health training, education, and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jmhtep-05-2021-0046","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Purpose “Co-production” is a process in health and social care wherein service users and practitioners work in partnership. Recovery colleges (RCs) are educational establishments offering mental health education; a cornerstone feature is that courses are designed and delivered in parity by both mental health practitioners and “peers” – people with lived experience of mental illness. This paper aims to consider, through the identification of key themes, whether co-production within RCs is operating successfully. Design/methodology/approach The paper is a systematic review of qualitative literature. Relevant concept groups were systematically searched using three bibliographic databases: Medline, Social Care Online and Scopus. Articles were quality appraised and then synthesised through inductive thematic analysis and emergent trends identified. Findings Synthesis identified three key themes relating to the impact of co-production in RCs: practitioner attitudes, power dynamics between practitioners and service users, and RCs’ relationships with their host organisations. As a result of RC engagement, traditional practitioner/patient hierarchies were found to be eroding. Practitioners felt they were more person-centred. RCs can model good co-productive practices to their host organisations. The review concluded, with some caveats, that RC co-production was of high fidelity. Originality/value RC research is growing, but the body of evidence remains relatively small. Most of what exists examine the impact of RCs on individuals’ overall recovery and mental health; there is a limited empirical investigation into whether their flagship feature of parity between peers and practitioners is genuine.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
合拍片在康复学院效果好吗?从系统的叙述回顾中涌现的主题
"合作生产"是保健和社会护理领域的一个过程,服务使用者和从业人员在其中建立伙伴关系。康复学院是提供心理健康教育的教育机构;一个基本特征是,课程是由精神卫生从业人员和“同伴”——有精神疾病生活经历的人——平等地设计和提供的。本文旨在通过确定关键主题来考虑rc内的合作制作是否成功运作。这篇论文是对定性文献的系统综述。相关概念组采用Medline、Social Care Online和Scopus三个书目数据库进行系统检索。文章质量评估,然后通过归纳专题分析和新兴趋势确定综合。《综合研究》确定了与合作生产在农村地区的影响有关的三个关键主题:从业人员态度、从业人员与服务用户之间的权力动态以及农村地区与其主办组织的关系。由于RC的参与,传统的医生/病人等级制度被发现正在削弱。从业者觉得他们更以人为本。区域中心可以为其主办组织示范良好的合作生产实践。审查的结论是,有一些警告,RC合作制作是高保真的。关于原创性/价值的研究正在增长,但证据主体仍然相对较少。现有的研究大多考察了RCs对个人整体康复和心理健康的影响;有一个有限的实证调查,是否他们的旗舰特征之间的对等同行和从业者是真实的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Mindful self-compassion training program in the family caregivers of patients with cancer: a quasi-experimental study Pedagogical considerations for enhancing peer support training in an online university environment Comparing the attitudes of junior doctors towards mental and physical ill-health: a survey of trainees in North London “Improved access, delayed accreditation, low recognition”: perspectives of mental health educators, preceptors and students on the Kintampo Project in Ghana Analysis and mapping of scientific literature on virtual and augmented reality technologies used in the context of mental health disorders (1980 – 2021)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1