Collaboration between researchers who have lived experience of mental illness and services (consumer researchers) and mental health researchers without (other mental health researchers) is an emergent development in research. Inclusion of consumer perspectives is crucial to ensuring the ethics, relevancy and validity of mental health research; yet widespread and embedded consumer collaboration of this nature is known to be impeded by attitudinal and organisational factors. Limited research describes consumer researchers' experiences of barriers. Other mental health researchers are key players in the co-production process yet there is also a paucity of research reporting their views on barriers to collaborating with consumers.
To explore other researchers' views and experiences on partnering with consumer mental health researchers in Australia and New Zealand.
Exploratory qualitative design. Eleven semi-structured interviews were conducted with mental health researchers. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed.
Four themes concerning barriers to collaborating with consumers (hierarchies, status quo, not understanding, paternalism), and one theme on addressing the barriers (constantly chipping away) were identified.
It is suggested that multifaceted strategies for advancing collaboration with consumers are most effective. It is imperative to attend to several barriers simultaneously to redress the inherent power disparity.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 June 2018.
All research outputs
#15,683,389
of 23,305,591 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Mental Health
#794
of 979 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,333
of 326,070 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Mental Health
#12
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,305,591 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 979 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,070 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
