Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41952500›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2026

Co-Production With Mental Health Family Carers: The Value, Outcomes and Benefits for Family Carers and Academic Researchers.

Caroline Walters, Melissa Petrakis, Sharon Lawn, Eileen McDonald, Carli Sheers, Hayley Solich, Jonathan Harms, Tony Stevenson, Melinda Goodyear, Marcelo Maghidman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Caroline WaltersDepartment of Social Work, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8770-7695
Melissa PetrakisDepartment of Social Work, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4885-932X
Sharon LawnCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5464-8887
Eileen McDonaldNational Mental Health Consumer and Carer Forum, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Carli SheersNational Mental Health Consumer and Carer Forum, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID 0009-0009-9920-9085
Hayley SolichNational Mental Health Consumer and Carer Forum, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Jonathan HarmsMental Health Carers NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Tony StevensonMental Illness Fellowship of Australia, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Melinda GoodyearSchool of Rural Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5928-0161
Marcelo MaghidmanDepartment of Social Work, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2040-055X

Funding

Australian Government Research Training ProgrammeNational Mental Health Commission
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFamily engagement in mental health service reform, design, treatment, and research is highlighted as important within government and governance guidelines; however, inconsistencies of inclusion continue to be experienced and reported. Within mental health and community research there are calls for the adoption of participatory and co-production methodologies.

objectiveTo add to the informed debate about patient and public involvement and engagement, this article explored the value, outcomes, and benefits of co-production as a way of working with and elevating mental health family carers in research.

methodsThirteen family carer co-researchers participated in one of two focused-conversations alongside two university academics, to reflect upon their experiences of working together across a 9-month co-produced research project. Co-researchers were asked to consider experiences in relation to the meaning of participation, impacts of co-production, and how this co-produced research compared to involvement in other research. The co-researchers were invited to participate in co-analysing the focused-conversations transcriptions, determining the findings, and authoring this paper.

resultsUtilising an inductive approach to reflexive thematic analysis, insights into the values and benefits for family carers, academic researchers, research evidence, and outcomes were established. Themes developed about the values and benefits as well as the mechanisms of co-production. Benefits were indicated for the researchers, participants, research process, evidence and outcomes. Mechanisms in relation to people's experiences of co-production included: processes were different to other research experiences, practices were relational, and ethos was collegial and supportive. The value of co-production was seen as privileging family carer voices, creating a sense of community and 'sitting around the kitchen table', leading to belonging and sharing within a space where people were safe, and participants felt validated.

conclusionIn recognising that co-production is fundamentally different to traditional research, this paper revealed the value, outcomes, and benefits of processes, practices and ethos that engaged and elevated family carer leadership in research. Family carer co-researchers experienced feelings of increased capability and identified that co-production, is right if the end result resonates with the whole experience.

Indexed as

CaregiversFamilyMental Health ServicesResearch PersonnelHealth Services ResearchHumansMental Healthcollaborative researchcommunity engagementco‐productionfamily carer co‐researchersmental health

Identifiers

PMID41952500
PMCPMC13062640

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.