Co-production in mental health care
| Published date | 14 December 2015 |
| Pages | 213-219 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/MHRJ-10-2015-0030 |
| Date | 14 December 2015 |
| Author | Michael Clark |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Mental health |
Guest editorial
Co-production in mental health care
Michael Clark
Michael Clark is Associate
Professorial Research Fellow at
PSSRU, London School of
Economics, London, UK.
Abstract
Purpose –Co-production is becoming a more widely used term in mental health care in England, but it is
not always clear what this means nor what the evidence base is behind particular uses of the concept.
The purpose of this paper is to set some of this discussion into a historical context and examine some of the
relevant evidence base to begin to highlight the challenges with operationalising more co-production. This is
by way of setting the scene for the other articles in this special edition of the journal. The paper then provides
an overview of the other articles on co-production in this edition.
Design/methodology/approach –The paper is a short review and discussion of some key issues and
evidence relevant to co-production in mental health.
Findings –Some key historical insights from other moves to transform mental health care are discussed,
recognising that these developments can take a long time to reach maturity in services and practice across
the whole country. The discussion of some pertinent research and of the other articles in this special edition
helps to highlight what foundations the author have in place for greater co-production in mental health care,
and what remains as some of the challenges and gaps in the knowledge.
Originality/value –The paper provides a historical overview of some key issues, evidence and lessons
pertaining to moves to develop more co-production in mental health.
Keywords Editorial
Paper type General review
Introduction
Mental health care in England has seen many profound debates about its future philosophy
and practice. These have not been debates about specific interventions and service models and
how these ought to, or ought not to, fit in to local systems and practice. Rather, they offer
deep challenges to how mental health and illness, experiences of these, and approaches to
support and care are thought of.
A key example was that concerning the moves from very large-scale institutions to care
geographically nearer to people’s communities –the move of deinstitutionalisation to community
care. A key date in this development was a speech by the then Minister of Health, Enoch Powell,
in 1961, which itself followed years of debate and pressure amongst and from professionals,
people using mental health services, their families and relevant charities (Gilbert and Clark, 2010).
Following decades of policy rhetoric of community care and significant shifts in practice, the
reality of community care was seen by many as a failed policy. The view of failure and
the prescription for the next steps was formed through a complex web of analyses, pressure
from activists and shifts in power (Gilbert et al., 2010). Out of this came the National Service
Framework (NSF) for Mental Health (Department of Health, 1999), the NHS Plan (Department of
Health, 2000) and new investment to improve community mental health care.
The work to move services to a recovery focus is another example of these profound debates
about mental health care. This relates to long debates about shifting from a medicalised view of
Received 16 October 2015
Revised 16 October 2015
Accepted 16 October 2015
DOI 10.1108/MHRJ-10-2015-0030 VOL. 20 NO. 4 2015, pp. 213-219, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1361-9322
j
MENTALHEALTH REVIEW JOURNAL
j
PAG E 21 3
To continue reading
Request your trial