CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 48Mental Health and Patient InvolvementFamily Caregiving in Mental IllnessPsychiatric care and mental health services

Carers and co-production: enabling expertise through experience?

Bradley, Eleanor·2015·Mental Health Review Journal
DOI 10.1108/mhrj-05-2014-0016
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: – The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief overview of the literature to date which has focused on co-production within mental healthcare in the UK, including service user and carer involvement and collaboration. Design/methodology/approach: – The paper presents key outcomes from studies which have explicitly attempted to introduce co-produced care in addition to specific tools designed to encourage co-production within mental health services. The paper debates the cultural and ideological shift required for staff, service users and family members to undertake co-produced care and outlines challenges ahead with respect to service redesign and new roles in practice. Findings: – Informal carers (family and friends) are recognised as a fundamental resource for mental health service provision, as well as a rich source of expertise through experience, yet their views are rarely solicited by mental health professionals or taken into account during decision making. This issue is considered alongside new policy recommendations which advocate the development of co-produced services and care. Research limitations/implications: – Despite the launch of a number of initiatives designed to build on peer experience and support, there has been a lack of attention on the differing dynamic which remains evident between healthcare professionals and people using mental health services. Co-production sheds a light on the blurring of roles, trust and shared endeavour (Slay and Stephens, 2013) but, despite an increase in peer recovery workers across England, there has been little research or service development designed to focus explicitly on this particular dynamic. Practical implications: – Despite these challenges, coproduction in mental healthcare represents a real opportunity for the skills and experience of family members to be taken into account and could provide a mechanism to achieve the “triangle of care” with input, recognition and respect given to all (service users, carers, professionals) whose lives are touched by mental distress. However, lack of attention in relation to carer perspectives, expertise and potential involvement could undermine the potential for coproduction to act as a vehicle to encourage person-centred care which accounts for social in addition to clinical factors. Social implications: – The families of people with severe and enduring mental illness assume a major responsibility for the provision of care and support to their relatives over extended time periods (Rose et al., 2004). Involving carers in discussions about care planning could help to provide a wider picture about the impact of mental health difficulties, beyond symptom reduction. The “co-production of care” reflects a desire to work meaningfully and fully with service users and carers. However, to date, little work has been undertaken in order to coproduce services through the “triangle of care” with carers bringing their own skills, resources and expertise. Originality/value: – This paper debates the current involvement of carers across mental healthcare and debates whether co-production could be a vehicle to utilise carer expertise, enhance quality and satisfaction with mental healthcare. The critique of current work highlights the danger of increasing expectations on service providers to undertake work aligned to key initiatives (shared decision-making, person-centred care, co-production), that have common underpinning principles but, in the absence of practical guidance, could be addressed in isolation rather than as an integrated approach within a “triangle of care”.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/mhrj-05-2014-0016

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bradley, E.
Affiliations
University of Worcester (GB)
Corresponding author
Bradley, Eleanor
ORCID
Bradley, Eleanor
Venue
Mental Health Review Journal
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2015-12-14
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
232-241
ISSN
1361-9322 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1108/mhrj-05-2014-0016
OpenAlex
W2223247554
Cited by
48
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2
FWCI
4.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.emerald.com/insight/site-policies (tdm)
Locations
  • Mental Health Review Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Worcester Research and Publications (University of Worcester) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Family Caregiving in Mental Illness
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
Keywords
co-production, mental health services, informal caregivers, family involvement, person-centred care, service user involvement, care planning, severe and persistent mental illness, service redesign, peer support

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review