ArticleInternational journal of mental health nursing2025
Towards Coproduction in Mental Health Academia: A Cooperative Inquiry.
Article in International journal of mental health nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- "It has to be part of the clinic's lived culture"- perspectives of next of kin on meaningful participation in psychiatric care: a participatory thematic analysis.BMC psychiatry · 2026Article
- Towards Coproduction in Mental Health Academia: A Cooperative Inquiry.International journal of mental health nursing · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Coproduction has emerged as an important means of effective mental health service delivery. Unfortunately, this term is commonly misunderstood, with tokenistic participation too often presented as coproduction. Funding and resourcing have been identified as significant, and often insurmountable, barriers to achieving coproduction. This paper presents findings from a cooperative inquiry project, addressing ideas and strategies for working towards coproduction within an academic unit. Three consumer/lived Experience academics and three nonconsumer academics (from Nursing, Occupational Therapy and Social Work) participated in a series of in-depth conversations to consider and identify potential strategies to advance the faculty's progress towards coproduction. Conversations were transcribed and analysed using a thematic approach. Five main themes were identified: importance of coproduction; preparing for coproduction; barriers to coproduction; the need for university transformation; and power. A belief in the inherent value of coproduction was shared among the group, and strategies were identified to clarify the level of participation. Radical transformation of universities, aligned with contemporary industry practice, is essential to achieving coproduction. Strategies such as allocating vacant academic positions for health professionals to consumer academics are indicative of measures required for genuine aspirations for coproduction to be realised and to address the seemingly insurmountable funding issues. Universities must recognise power differences and remain honest about their position according to participation ladders. These findings provide guidance for academics who acknowledge the value of coproduction to address the commonly identified barriers to its implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.