Coproducing Randomised Controlled Trials:

How Do We Work Together?

Lucy Polyanna Goldsmith, Rosaleen Morshead, Charlotte McWilliam, Gordon Forbes, Michael Ussher, Alan Simpson, Mike Lucock, Steve Gillard

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

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.
Original languageEnglish
Article number21
Number of pages11
JournalFrontiers in Sociology
Volume4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 29 Mar 2019

Fingerprint

coproduction
mental health
rigidity
quantitative research
qualitative research
flexibility
research project
dialogue
health
learning

Cite this

Goldsmith, L. P., Morshead, R., McWilliam, C., Forbes, G., Ussher, M., Simpson, A., ... Gillard, S. (2019). Coproducing Randomised Controlled Trials: How Do We Work Together? Frontiers in Sociology, 4, [21]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2019.00021
Goldsmith, Lucy Polyanna ; Morshead, Rosaleen ; McWilliam, Charlotte ; Forbes, Gordon ; Ussher, Michael ; Simpson, Alan ; Lucock, Mike ; Gillard, Steve. / Coproducing Randomised Controlled Trials: How Do We Work Together?. In: Frontiers in Sociology. 2019 ; Vol. 4.
@article{90eeb7881de2450d9f3eb10eed8ec344,
title = "Coproducing Randomised Controlled Trials:: How Do We Work Together?",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "coproduction, randomized controlled trial (RCT), quantitative research approaches, reflective practice, methodology and methods of sociological research, peer support (PS)",
author = "Goldsmith, {Lucy Polyanna} and Rosaleen Morshead and Charlotte McWilliam and Gordon Forbes and Michael Ussher and Alan Simpson and Mike Lucock and Steve Gillard",
year = "2019",
month = "3",
day = "29",
doi = "10.3389/fsoc.2019.00021",
language = "English",
volume = "4",
journal = "Frontiers in Sociology",

}

Goldsmith, LP, Morshead, R, McWilliam, C, Forbes, G, Ussher, M, Simpson, A, Lucock, M & Gillard, S 2019, 'Coproducing Randomised Controlled Trials: How Do We Work Together?', Frontiers in Sociology, vol. 4, 21. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2019.00021

Coproducing Randomised Controlled Trials: How Do We Work Together? / Goldsmith, Lucy Polyanna; Morshead, Rosaleen ; McWilliam, Charlotte ; Forbes, Gordon; Ussher, Michael ; Simpson, Alan; Lucock, Mike; Gillard, Steve.

In: Frontiers in Sociology, Vol. 4, 21, 29.03.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Coproducing Randomised Controlled Trials:

T2 - How Do We Work Together?

AU - Goldsmith, Lucy Polyanna

AU - Morshead, Rosaleen

AU - McWilliam, Charlotte

AU - Forbes, Gordon

AU - Ussher, Michael

AU - Simpson, Alan

AU - Lucock, Mike

AU - Gillard, Steve

PY - 2019/3/29

Y1 - 2019/3/29

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - coproduction

KW - randomized controlled trial (RCT)

KW - quantitative research approaches

KW - reflective practice

KW - methodology and methods of sociological research

KW - peer support (PS)

U2 - 10.3389/fsoc.2019.00021

DO - 10.3389/fsoc.2019.00021

M3 - Article

VL - 4

JO - Frontiers in Sociology

JF - Frontiers in Sociology

M1 - 21

ER -

Goldsmith LP, Morshead R, McWilliam C, Forbes G, Ussher M, Simpson A et al. Coproducing Randomised Controlled Trials: How Do We Work Together? Frontiers in Sociology. 2019 Mar 29;4. 21. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2019.00021