Abstract
Introduction
Co‐production between service users and clinicians is a desirable element of recovery‐oriented practice in mental health but the effect of co‐production on clinicians has not been explored thoroughly.
Aim
to explore the meaning of co‐production for clinicians based on their experience of co‐production in a Recovery College
Method: Thematic analysis of eight semi‐structured interviews with clinicians who have co‐produced and co‐delivered workshops with a Recovery College Peer Trainer.
Results
The ‘meaning of co‐production’ had four themes: definitions, power dynamics, negotiating roles and influence on practice. Clinicians’ experience of co‐production meant a reassessment of their expert role and power. They said that this altered their clinical practice, particularly the language they used and the personal information they shared.
Discussion
Role negotiation between Practitioner and Peer Trainers is an iterative process, whereby clinicians may revise their perspectives on personal disclosure, professional identity and collegiate support. The Peer and Practitioner Trainer relationship is characterised by reciprocity and mutuality, and there is some evidence that Practitioner involvement in a co‐produced activity has the potential to transform service user and provider relationships beyond the Recovery College setting.
Implications for practice
Engaging in co‐produced educational workshops can alter clinicians’ perspectives on roles, power and clinical expertise. Findings from this case study must be tested against research on other Recovery Colleges.
Co‐production between service users and clinicians is a desirable element of recovery‐oriented practice in mental health but the effect of co‐production on clinicians has not been explored thoroughly.
Aim
to explore the meaning of co‐production for clinicians based on their experience of co‐production in a Recovery College
Method: Thematic analysis of eight semi‐structured interviews with clinicians who have co‐produced and co‐delivered workshops with a Recovery College Peer Trainer.
Results
The ‘meaning of co‐production’ had four themes: definitions, power dynamics, negotiating roles and influence on practice. Clinicians’ experience of co‐production meant a reassessment of their expert role and power. They said that this altered their clinical practice, particularly the language they used and the personal information they shared.
Discussion
Role negotiation between Practitioner and Peer Trainers is an iterative process, whereby clinicians may revise their perspectives on personal disclosure, professional identity and collegiate support. The Peer and Practitioner Trainer relationship is characterised by reciprocity and mutuality, and there is some evidence that Practitioner involvement in a co‐produced activity has the potential to transform service user and provider relationships beyond the Recovery College setting.
Implications for practice
Engaging in co‐produced educational workshops can alter clinicians’ perspectives on roles, power and clinical expertise. Findings from this case study must be tested against research on other Recovery Colleges.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 349-357 |
Journal | Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing |
Volume | 25 |
Issue number | 5-6 |
Early online date | 15 May 2018 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Jun 2018 |