Co-producing Randomized Controlled Trials: How Do We Work Together?
coproduction
methodology and methods of sociological research
peer support (PS)
quantitative research approaches
randomized controlled trial (RCT)
reflective practice
Journal
Frontiers in sociology
ISSN: 2297-7775
Titre abrégé: Front Sociol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101777459
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
23
10
2018
accepted:
05
03
2019
entrez:
19
4
2021
pubmed:
29
3
2019
medline:
29
3
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In the light of the declaration "Nothing about us without us" (Charlton, 2000), interest in co-production, and coproduced research is expanding. Good work has been done establishing principles for co-production (Hickey et al., 2018) and for good quality involvement (Involve, 2013; 4Pi, 2015) and describing how this works in practice in mental health research (Gillard et al., 2012a,b, 2013). In the published literature, co-production has worked well in qualitative research projects in which there is often methodological flexibility. However, to change treatment guidelines in the UK, e.g., the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, and influence service commissioning, high quality quantitative research is also needed. This type of research is characterized by formal methodological rules, which pose challenges for the scope of co-production. In this paper we describe the significant challenges and solutions we adopted to design and deliver a coproduced randomized controlled trial of mental health peer support. Given the methodological rigidity of a randomized controlled trial, establishing clearly which methodological and practical decisions and processes can be coproduced, by whom, and how, has been vital to our ongoing co-production as the project has progressed and the team has expanded. Creating and maintaining space for the supported dialogue, reflection, and culture that co-production requires has been vital. This paper aims to make our learning accessible to a wide audience of people developing co-production of knowledge in this field.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33869347
doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2019.00021
pmc: PMC8022576
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
21Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : PB-PG-0408-16151
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : RP-PG-1212-20019
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 Goldsmith, Morshead, McWilliam, Forbes, Ussher, Simpson, Lucock and Gillard.
Références
Community Ment Health J. 2015 Jul;51(5):628-34
pubmed: 25535045
BMC Psychiatry. 2018 Jun 28;18(1):213
pubmed: 29954373
Qual Health Res. 2012 Aug;22(8):1126-37
pubmed: 22673090
Int J Qual Health Care. 2012 Feb;24(1):28-38
pubmed: 22109631
BMJ. 2000 Jul 29;321(7256):255-6
pubmed: 10915111
Qual Health Res. 2008 Jan;18(1):120-32
pubmed: 18174540
J Clin Nurs. 2015 Dec;24(23-24):3584-93
pubmed: 26334917
BMJ. 2011 Feb 07;342:d40
pubmed: 21300711
Health Expect. 2019 Apr;22(2):133-148
pubmed: 30618105
Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2017 May;38(5):374-380
pubmed: 28448229
Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2017 Jan;18(1):14-23
pubmed: 27132634
J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2018 Jun;25(5-6):349-357
pubmed: 29763995
Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2018 Aug;27(4):1273-1281
pubmed: 29920906
Health Expect. 2010 Jun;13(2):174-84
pubmed: 19737315
Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2010 Jul;56(4):389-401
pubmed: 19628557
BMC Med. 2015 Sep 01;13:200
pubmed: 26324223
Lancet. 1998 Aug 22;352(9128):609-13
pubmed: 9746022