View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Power to the People? A Co-Produced Critical Review of Service User Involvement in Mental Health Professions Education

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Power to the People? A Co-Produced Critical Review of Service User Involvement in Mental Health Professions Education
Language: English
Authors: Csilla Kalocsai, Sacha Agrawal, Lee de Bie, Michaela Beder, Gail Bellissimo, Suze Berkhout, Andrew Johnson, Nancy McNaughton, Terri Rodak, Kim McCullough, Sophie Soklaridis
Source: Advances in Health Sciences Education. 2024 29(1):273-300.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 28
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Mental Health, Counselor Training, Allied Health Occupations Education, Lay People, Power Structure, Neoliberalism, Epistemology, Social Justice, Mental Health Programs
DOI: 10.1007/s10459-023-10240-z
ISSN: 1382-4996
1573-1677
Abstract: Meaningful service user involvement in health professions education requires integrating knowledge held by "lay" people affected by health challenges into professional theories and practices. Involving service users redefines whose knowledge "counts" and implies a shift in power. Such a shift is especially significant in the mental health field, where power imbalances between health professionals and service users are magnified. However, reviews of the literature on service user involvement in mental health professional education do little to explore how power manifests in this work. Meanwhile critical and Mad studies scholars have highlighted that without real shifts in power, inclusion practices can lead to harmful consequences. We conducted a critical review to explore how power is addressed in the literature that describes service user involvement in mental health professions education. Our team used a co-produced approach and critical theories to identify how power implicitly and explicitly operates in this work to unearth the inequities and power structures that service user involvement may inadvertently perpetuate. We demonstrate that power permeates service user involvement in mental health professional education but is rarely made visible. We also argue that by missing the opportunity to locate power, the literature contributes to a series of epistemic injustices that reveal the contours of legitimate knowledge in mental health professions education and its neoliberal underpinnings. Ultimately, we call for a critical turn that foregrounds power relations to unlock the social justice-oriented transformative potential of service user involvement in mental health professions education and health professions education more broadly.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1416353
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwG87baN3ULSwPcUvefzB6a7AAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDDk_9HkBAo2HmnXOLwIBEICBmow3_H3d536mRUiM7ci77Ep6cH8SMgNvcOknHnI0txUAwrB0JMFGxB25vd3JWwuB3CbEpZw_Xj-LwS3fJrQOjCdXJbP8RC1e0mtPBa-bLmnUyKzx17_ve6Yf0ZDqIoYTUpsFp2YWq84lkHgeJ2v6ulf0HR7SPdUbGeYQOXwtmW6jZhoyjcIGU2WmDB-d99WsZ7W__mNX4ZnQB1c=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0175982043;oak01mar.24;2024Mar14.07:14;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0175982043-1">Power to the people? A co-produced critical review of service user involvement in mental health professions education </title> <p>Meaningful service user involvement in health professions education requires integrating knowledge held by "lay" people affected by health challenges into professional theories and practices. Involving service users redefines whose knowledge "counts" and implies a shift in power. Such a shift is especially significant in the mental health field, where power imbalances between health professionals and service users are magnified. However, reviews of the literature on service user involvement in mental health professional education do little to explore how power manifests in this work. Meanwhile critical and Mad studies scholars have highlighted that without real shifts in power, inclusion practices can lead to harmful consequences. We conducted a critical review to explore how power is addressed in the literature that describes service user involvement in mental health professions education. Our team used a co-produced approach and critical theories to identify how power implicitly and explicitly operates in this work to unearth the inequities and power structures that service user involvement may inadvertently perpetuate. We demonstrate that power permeates service user involvement in mental health professional education but is rarely made visible. We also argue that by missing the opportunity to locate power, the literature contributes to a series of epistemic injustices that reveal the contours of legitimate knowledge in mental health professions education and its neoliberal underpinnings. Ultimately, we call for a critical turn that foregrounds power relations to unlock the social justice-oriented transformative potential of service user involvement in mental health professions education and health professions education more broadly.</p> <p>Keywords: Service user involvement; Patient and public involvement; Co-production; Health professional education; Health professions education research; Mental health; Critical literature review; Critical theories</p> <p>Sacha Agrawal is co-first author.</p> <hd id="AN0175982043-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Service user[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>] involvement (SUI) has a significant history in the design and delivery of mental health professional education (MHPE), as well as in mental health services (Kirkegaard & Andersen, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref2">71</reflink>]; Stomski & Morrison, [<reflink idref="bib126" id="ref3">126</reflink>]), research (Beresford, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref4">14</reflink>]; Madden & Speed, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref5">76</reflink>]) and social services more broadly (Bombard et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref6">19</reflink>]; Greenhalgh et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref7">60</reflink>]). SUI in health professions education (HPE) is a complex phenomenon involving numerous stakeholders to address diverse and often competing agendas (Gibson et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref8">56</reflink>]; Greenhalgh et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref9">61</reflink>]; Madden & Speed, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref10">76</reflink>]; Rowland et al., [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref11">105</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref12">106</reflink>]). Notwithstanding its heterogeneity, the involvement of service users implies the potential for shifting the historically constituted power relations among service user educators, service providers, learners, faculty, and researchers (Agrawal et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref13">3</reflink>]; Felton & Stickley, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref14">47</reflink>]; Rose & Kalathil, [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref15">103</reflink>]; Sharma, [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref16">112</reflink>]). Meaningful SUI requires valuing and integrating the knowledge held by "lay" people affected by health challenges. SUI redefines whose knowledge "counts" as expertise (Agrawal et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref17">3</reflink>]; Madden & Speed, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref18">76</reflink>]; Soklaridis et al., [<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref19">117</reflink>]; Vinson, [<reflink idref="bib135" id="ref20">135</reflink>]). In the mental health field, this shift in power has additional significance because discrimination has marginalized mental health service users' knowledge and expertise for centuries (Crichton et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref21">37</reflink>]; Foucault, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref22">51</reflink>]; Thornicroft, [<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref23">130</reflink>]).</p> <p>Numerous literature reviews on SUI in MHPE have found that this scholarship lacks rigour (Arblaster et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref24">5</reflink>]; Bennett-Weston et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref25">13</reflink>]; Happell et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref26">64</reflink>]; Repper & Breeze, [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref27">99</reflink>]; Terry, [<reflink idref="bib127" id="ref28">127</reflink>]; Towle et al., [<reflink idref="bib131" id="ref29">131</reflink>]; Townend et al., [<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref30">132</reflink>]). Identified shortcomings include scant descriptions of interventions, lack of theoretical frameworks, short timeframes, absence of strong patient voice, and few meaningful outcome measures. While the concept of power (or empowerment) is briefly mentioned it is never rigorously explored.</p> <p>Meanwhile, critical scholars and scholars of survivor research and Mad studies, which are rooted in the consumer/survivor/ex-patient movements (c/s/x movements), are striving to harness experiential knowledge toward change and social justice (Faulkner, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref31">46</reflink>]; Rose, [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref32">102</reflink>]). These scholars have raised concerns about how SUI is enacted in MHPE and research, and highlight how inclusion, without a commitment to transforming power relations, can lead to harmful consequences (Brown & Jones, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref33">21</reflink>]; Costa et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref34">34</reflink>]; Kalathil & Jones, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref35">68</reflink>]; Madden & Speed, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref36">76</reflink>]; Poole, [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref37">93</reflink>]). They argue that by failing to enact real shifts in power, tokenistic SUI reproduces, rather than challenges, the institutional status quo in healthcare (Madden & Speed, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref38">76</reflink>]). Costa et al. ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref39">34</reflink>]), Poole ([<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref40">93</reflink>]) and others take the argument further and reveal how mental health service users' knowledges and narratives shared in educational settings are co-opted by institutions to achieve institutional ends. They show how "sanitized" stories of healing and recovery do little to interrogate professional knowledge or to address broader social issues such as poverty, unemployment and discrimination that profoundly affect the lives of many service users. In addition, the authors argue that the use of first-person accounts is often voyeuristic and exploitative, raising ethical questions about this common form of involvement. Scholars also discuss other significant ethical and political consequences of uncritical inclusion practices, including limited confidentiality, precarious terms of engagement, wasted time and resources, personal risks and emotional costs to those involved (Brown & Jones, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref41">21</reflink>]; Soklaridis et al., [<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref42">117</reflink>]; Voronka & Costa, [<reflink idref="bib136" id="ref43">136</reflink>]).</p> <p>To bridge this gap in the HPE literature and join the conversation of critical and Mad studies colleagues, we conducted a critical review, asking: How have power relations among service user educators, clinical faculty, learners and researchers been addressed in the literature on SUI in MHPE? We show how the literature has largely failed to contend with the power dynamics embedded in this work and thus has contributed to a series of epistemic injustices (Fricker, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref44">54</reflink>]), reflecting the contours of legitimate knowledge and its neoliberal underpinnings in HPE. We argue that foregrounding power relations is essential for making sense of SUI and working toward ethical, equitable and just service user engagement. We offer a set of critical questions as an analytical framework for educators, service providers and researchers to locate power in their work, and we propose our co-produced research approach as a model. Finally, we call for a critical turn so we can reimagine SUI to fulfill its social justice–oriented transformative potential in MHPE and in HPE more broadly.</p> <hd id="AN0175982043-3">Theories of power</hd> <p>Our understanding of power is anchored in several critical theories. Drawing on the French critical theorist Michel Foucault, we understand power as relational, productive and pervasive, and power and knowledge as inextricably linked (Burchell et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref45">22</reflink>]). Power is not simply a resource that one has or does not have and that one can re/distribute; rather, it is relational, infusing all relationships among health professionals, researchers and service user educators. Instead of being solely repressive or oppressive, power is also productive, generating multiple effects, such as service user professionalization, tokenism and learner resistance. Instead of emanating solely from powerful social institutions, such as the state, police or the hospital, power is pervasive, permeating all social discourses and practices, including the discourses and practices of SUI in MHPE. Most importantly, power and knowledge are inextricably linked, and SUI therefore fundamentally represents a negotiation of the <emph>power to know</emph>, or rather, negotiations about knowledge and expertise.</p> <p>Given the links between power, knowledge and expertise, we also draw on British philosopher Miranda Fricker's concept of <emph>epistemic injustice</emph> and related scholarship by Kristy Dotson and José Medina (Dotson, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref46">44</reflink>]; Fricker, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref47">54</reflink>]; Medina, [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref48">84</reflink>]). Epistemic injustice conveys the understanding that harms occur when the knower's capacity and power to know are challenged through questioning their credibility or intelligibility. Mental health service users have historically been devalued, discredited and rendered unintelligible as knowers in multiple ways (Crichton et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref49">37</reflink>]). This devaluing and discrediting continues due to epistemic norms that further social exclusion (Russo, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref50">109</reflink>]). For example, when service users' views and experiences of the world diverge significantly from a biomedical understanding, our/their beliefs and perceptions are often diminished and reduced to symptoms of mental illness and we/they are described as lacking insight, which is itself attributed to illness (Davidson, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref51">38</reflink>]). In some instances, service users' ability to make decisions is legally removed, which makes involuntary treatment and hospitalization possible. The concept of <emph>epistemic justice</emph> refers to reclaiming the power to know and the right to contest by having one's (and one's community's) experiences, understandings and knowledges valued as expertise.</p> <p>Our thinking about power has also been shaped by American critical race theorist Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw's theory of intersectionality (Crenshaw, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref52">36</reflink>]). Crenshaw prompts us to recognize the overlapping structures of power and oppression, including colonialism, racism, capitalism, sanism, ableism, sexism, religious discrimination and heteronormativity, which shape and constrain people's everyday lives and which have classified, labelled and excluded nonnormative ways of thinking and being in the world for centuries. When mental health service users experience intersecting forms of oppression, their profound epistemic devaluing leads to further discrimination, including reduced access to health care, employment, education and housing, or to increased incarceration.</p> <p>These theories of power have defined our research paradigm and methodology and have informed our analysis of the literature on SUI in MHPE. We acknowledge that most of the articles in our review did not set out to understand power. We also note that we were not looking for the presence of these particular understandings of power in the literature. Rather, we were interested in how power operates implicitly or explicitly in the articles, with the goal of unearthing and challenging the inequities and power structures that they may inadvertently perpetuate.</p> <hd id="AN0175982043-4">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0175982043-5">Our approach</hd> <p>This study has roots in several local initiatives that involved service users in MHPE (e.g., Agrawal et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref53">2</reflink>]; Agrawal et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref54">3</reflink>]; Soklaridis et al., [<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref55">117</reflink>]). We aimed to leverage our diverse knowledges and experiences to theorize co-produced MHPE, and also used co-production as our approach to undertake this critical review of the literature. We defined co-produced education as a process where service providers and service users share power to plan, deliver, evaluate and study education together, recognizing the vital contributions both groups can make to HPE (Slay & Stephens, [<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref56">116</reflink>]). Co-production originates from participatory research methodologies and critical pedagogy. It is distinct from other forms of participation in which service users lead and control the education and research process (Beresford, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref57">14</reflink>]; Rose, [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref58">102</reflink>]) or in which service users are only the subjects of education and research. While our definition of co-production emphasized shifts in power, the term has been used in various ways in the literature. We decided to use the concept of co-production to describe our own work but to focus on SUI more broadly, including its more or less meaningful forms, in this review.</p> <p>This work is built on a shared commitment to advance the practice of involving service users in MHPE by bringing attention to issues related to power, ethics and social justice. Our identities as service users, service providers, educators, researchers, and psychiatric, social work, and clinical ethics trainees are not mutually exclusive. Many of us inhabit more than one such position, and these identities intersect with others, including Indigenous, queer, non-binary, disabled, migrant and person of colour. Collaborating to produce research, however, was as fraught with tensions as was collaborating to produce health professions education, particularly with a large team, a limited budget and during a global pandemic. We continually examined and regrounded our research practices in the ethical commitments we made to one another at the beginning of our project (Table 1). Our most important value was relational accountability, enacted through reflexivity and the 4 R's of Respect, Reciprocity, Relevance and Responsibility for one another and to the wider c/s/x movements by being in conversation with survivor and Mad scholarship (Kirkness & Barnhardt, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref59">72</reflink>]). Co-producing this work also meant leaning into our differences, as the diversity of our academic backgrounds, social identities and lived experiences led to diverse priorities and viewpoints that at times came into conflict. It also meant sharing our knowledges and perspectives with one another, for example by sharing background articles and by pairing up during the screening to support team members with varying degrees of experience and time to navigate academic literature. Our process also involved slowing down when more time was needed to ensure that everyone could be heard, or, in other words, making room for "crip time," an idea that some of us have explored previously (Soklaridis et al., [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref60">118</reflink>]). We also needed to be flexible with roles, for example by rotating leadership among numerous members at different times and in different ways. We see these practices as fundamental elements of ethical collaboration, and we make them visible in this paper in the interest of reimagining the scholarship of SUI.</p> <p>Table 1 Living agreement</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>1. To enact relational accountability to one another and to service user movements and scholarship</p></th><th align="left" /></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>2. To value everyone's knowledge equally, which includes paying service user educators' for their contributions, however imperfect that payment might be</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3. To be open to learning from one another</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4. To maintain a process- and relationship-orientation, which includes attending to and mitigating power imbalances within our team</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>5. To address accessibility issues, which includes navigating paywalls around journal articles and using accessible language in our discussions with one another and in our research outputs</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>6. To share knowledge with one another and to provide support, for example, by working in pair</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>7. To distribute the work (and the opportunities to learn) widely among us, recognizing that some may need to step in when others may need to step back</p></td><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0175982043-6">Paradigm and methodology</hd> <p>We approached this work from social constructionist, critical paradigms. Working from a constructionist paradigm, we acknowledged that collaborations among service user educators, service provider faculty and learners—and research about such collaborations—are complex social activities that start with our positionalities. We also embraced critical pedagogy and a critical research paradigm in this work, foregrounding power and co-produced learning. As critical educators and researchers, we want to see equitable and ethical service user involvement in health professions education and in health care more broadly as a possible pathway toward social justice. Aligning our research methodology with these paradigms, we conducted a critical literature review to challenge the inequities and power structures that this literature may inadvertently perpetuate. Critical reviews are commonly understood as a way to problematize or newly interpret the literature and to offer a new model or direction for the field (Grant & Booth, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref61">58</reflink>]; Greenhalgh & Wieringa, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref62">59</reflink>]; Ng et al., [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref63">87</reflink>]). We extend this definition of a critical review by drawing on critical theories to problematize the literature.</p> <hd id="AN0175982043-7">Data collection</hd> <p>Based on our discussions about terminology, our medical librarian (TR) developed a search strategy using database-specific subject headings and natural language keywords to query three essential concepts in bibliographic databases: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref64">1</reflink>) co-production, loosely defined to mean any involvement of service users as educators; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref65">2</reflink>) health professions education; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref66">3</reflink>) mental health and addictions ("Appendix 1"). The concept of power was not included in the search strategy because we were interested in the ways that power both explicitly and implicitly operates in this work. Between November 2017 and January 2018, we searched Medline, APA PsycInfo, the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS), the Cochrane Library, the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) and Social Work Abstracts, without limits on date, study design or publication type. We only included English-language texts. The search yielded 6160 unique articles. Due to resource constraints, we were unable to systematically examine the citations of the selected articles to identify other potential papers. We also were unable to include non-indexed (grey) literature in our search while recognizing that this quite likely led to the exclusion of some important work, particularly from service user authors. We did, however, scan selected articles for their citation practices to understand how survivor/Mad scholarship entered this work. Using the web-based systematic review platform Covidence, two team members reviewed titles and abstracts for relevance, and disagreements were resolved by a different pair of team members through consensus. We identified 296 articles that we reviewed in full text for eligibility following the same process. Our search yielded a final dataset of 169 articles (Table 2).</p> <p>Graph</p> <hd id="AN0175982043-8">Data analysis and developing our collective critical lens</hd> <p>Each team member was given 17 of the 169 articles to read for elements of particular interest to us, including the purpose and nature of the educational activity described; the nature of the evaluation or research (where applicable); and the ways in which power was identified, described, theorized or put to use in the article. We used a shared spreadsheet file to record our extractions ("Appendix 2"). Drawing on these articles, our diverse academic backgrounds and our experiences designing, delivering and researching SUI in MHPE, we met six times to discuss how we might best understand power relations in SUI. We learned from one another by exchanging background texts and discussing a wide range of theories, and eventually landed on a shared understanding of power that helped us see this work critically (see "Theories of power" section above).</p> <p>Through our collective critical lens, LdB and CK constructed a preliminary series of analytical dimensions to examine how power appeared and disappeared in the literature, including whether and how power was theorized and analyzed; whether and how social and structural forces were considered; whether and how reflexivity was used to recognize and respond to power; and whether and how shifts in power in education were followed by shifts in power in research and authorship. We identified articles that were particularly helpful in illuminating or challenging the various analytical dimensions of power. These dimensions were refined iteratively and expanded to include two suggestions made by one author (CK). These additions were about whether and how power figured among the rationales for SUI and whether and how the literature engaged with survivor and Mad scholarship. Last, the two co-first authors (CK and SA), using the notes of various team members and rereading many of the articles themselves, developed our analysis further in conversation with the whole research team and distilled the dimensions into a set of critical questions. The final set of critical questions structures our findings and is proposed as an analytical framework for others to better understand and reimagine SUI in MHPE (Table 3).</p> <p>Table 3 Critical questions</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>How does power figure among the rationales given for involving service users?</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>How do the authors engage with a theory of power?</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>How is the concept of power incorporated into the analysis of the effects of service user involvement?</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>How are structures of power considered?</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>How is power shared in the inquiry and writing?</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>How do the authors engage with survivor research and Mad studies?</p></td><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0175982043-9">Results</hd> <p>We begin with an overview of the nature and distribution of the selected publications. We then describe our findings in relation to a series of critical questions that we use to explore how power figures in the literature on SUI in MHPE (Table 3). We recognize that these questions overlap in multiple ways and that many other ways of "seeing" power in this literature are possible. We also note that the cited articles serve as examples only and are not an exhaustive list of all the articles in our dataset that pertain to each question.</p> <hd id="AN0175982043-10">Overview of publications in the review</hd> <p>The 169 articles we reviewed were published in 69 journals between 1991 and 2018. Papers from the United Kingdom made up the majority, reflecting that country's leadership role in service user (or patient and public) involvement. There were also many articles from Australia, the United States and Canada. We found papers describing involvement across the entire training continuum, from pre- to post-licensure, and arising from six health professions (nursing, social work, occupational therapy, pharmacy, psychology and psychiatry). Many of the articles reported program evaluation or original research, with the balance consisting of commentaries, editorials, review papers, conference proceedings and innovation reports.</p> <hd id="AN0175982043-11">How does power figure among the rationales for involving service users?</hd> <p>In our dataset, we found five rationales for involving service users in educational initiatives, but power was rarely considered among them. The most frequent rationale was compliance with regulatory requirements (e.g., Campbell & Wilson, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref67">27</reflink>]; Fallon et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref68">45</reflink>]; Masters et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref69">81</reflink>]; McIntosh, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref70">83</reflink>]; Obi-Udeaja et al., [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref71">89</reflink>]). Many articles started by referencing policy mandates, for instance from national-level regulators or funders that made service user participation in HPE an expectation.</p> <p>Another common rationale was that SUI would lead to better clinical care (e.g., Byrne et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref72">25</reflink>]; Chadwick, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref73">28</reflink>]; Schneebeli et al., [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref74">111</reflink>]). This outcome-oriented logic of quality improvement often recognized lay expertise and aimed to increase the accountability of mental health professionals and services to service users (e.g., Simpson, [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref75">115</reflink>]). In this framing, the value of service user engagement in education ultimately came from the beneficial effects it purportedly produced.</p> <p>A third, closely related, rationale articulated a consumerist logic, a manifestation of neoliberal capitalism that marks a process whereby market forces and principles filter into spaces from which the state has rolled back (Burchell et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref76">22</reflink>]). This rationale valued autonomous "consumer choice and influence" (Simpson, [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref77">115</reflink>]), whereby individual service users became customers of mental health services (Collier & Stickley, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref78">33</reflink>]) and could "convey what they want from professionals based on their experiences" (Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib138" id="ref79">138</reflink>], p. 221). Consumerism thus narrowly targeted individuals, emphasizing individual choice, responsibility and accountability, with the goal of improving individual dispositions, effectiveness and satisfaction. The consumerist argument thus proposed that SUI in education would help clinical learners be "more responsive to the needs of the public" and ultimately lead to the development of "consumer-focused service" or patient-centered clinical care (Simpson, [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref80">115</reflink>]. p. 221).</p> <p>A fourth rationale for involving service users in educational initiatives was that service user movements demanded it (e.g., Felton & Stickley, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref81">47</reflink>]; Prytherch et al., [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref82">94</reflink>]; Speers, [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref83">121</reflink>]). While articles that referred to this rationale often stated that SUI aimed to change existing power relations and thus reform mental health services, the authors' relationship to these movements seemed complicated. For example, Australian service user/consumer academic Cath Roper and nurse educator Brenda Happell pointed to different rationales when describing their work together (Roper & Happell, [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref84">101</reflink>]). While Happell referred to the compliance logic, Roper took a historical lens and stated that "the principles that sustain me are drawn from a sense of belonging to a tradition of thinkers, writers, and activists who have used their experience of psychiatric services to emphasize human rights and to demand better" (p. 88).</p> <p>The fifth rationale, overlapping with the previous one, appealed to democratic and egalitarian ideals, resting on the premise that service users have the right to shape their own mental health services and, consequently, the training of mental health professionals. This rationale alone seemed to set up a clear foundation for shifting power, but in our dataset, it was rarely mentioned. For example, Simons et al. ([<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref85">114</reflink>]) called for "adopting methods that take a 'democratic' approach [Beresford, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref86">16</reflink>]] [that] seek to redress power imbalances between professionals and users, with an explicit agenda of inclusion" (p. 247). Their case study of a service user academic post in a British nursing school took a critical look at the extent to which the post holder achieved inclusion. The authors found numerous ways in which the ideals of inclusion fell short through various subtle discriminatory and exclusionary practices that diminished the value and legitimacy of the service user academic. Thus, we see how starting with a democratic rationale led to a critical analysis of the ways in which power relations were both disrupted and reinforced through this initiative.</p> <p>The reviewed articles sometimes refer to multiple rationales for involving service users in mental health professions education, often mixing and matching various, sometimes conflicting, logics. The consumerist rationale, often matched with the outcome-oriented logic of quality improvement, which many of the authors in our dataset alluded to as a foundation for their work with service users, implicitly permeates much of this literature. While focusing on individuals and outcomes is important, it leads to limited inclusion practices in education, research and writing, and constrains how power is theorized in the articles, as the following sections demonstrate.</p> <hd id="AN0175982043-12">How do the authors engage with a theory of power?</hd> <p>We found that much of the literature fails to name power or use theory to analyze power relations among service user educators, service provider learners, faculty and the institutions they inhabit (e.g., Billon et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref87">17</reflink>]; Dogra et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref88">41</reflink>]; Frisby, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref89">55</reflink>]; Manning et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref90">78</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref91">79</reflink>]; Shenoy, [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref92">113</reflink>]). Power relations were often only revealed by implicit language, for example, when authors referred to the practice of "using" service users (e.g., Rouse & Torney, [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref93">104</reflink>]) or "complying" with regulatory requirements that set expectations for SUI in MHPE, without recognizing this language as an act of power that shaped SUI. When articles used some explicit language of power without theory, for example, by referring to service user "empowerment" (e.g., Kenny et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref94">70</reflink>]) and "flipped" or "reverse" power relations (e.gAgrawal & Edwards, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref95">1</reflink>]; Ferguson et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref96">48</reflink>]; Kemp, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref97">69</reflink>]), they tended to recognize power as a finding of the study rather than a dimension requiring attention from the outset and throughout a project.</p> <p>We also found articles that explicitly used some language and theory of power but whose reference to theory was superficial (e.g., Dorozenko et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref98">42</reflink>]; Fallon et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref99">45</reflink>]; Stickley et al., [<reflink idref="bib125" id="ref100">125</reflink>]). For example, Stacey and Pearson ([<reflink idref="bib122" id="ref101">122</reflink>]) noted students' negative reactions to SUI and evoked the concept of othering to explain how students "maintain social power" (p. 325). However, they only cited MacCallum ([<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref102">75</reflink>]) as a secondary source, without referencing any of the original social theorists of othering that MacCallum discussed. Lacking serious engagement with a theory of power, the authors did not comment further on the dynamics of power at play in SUI.</p> <p>A few articles used language and theory of power in a more robust way (e.g., Fox, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref103">52</reflink>]; Reid & Poole, [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref104">97</reflink>]; Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib138" id="ref105">138</reflink>]). These articles drew on critical theories to interrogate mental health professions' epistemic authority. Notably, Reid and Poole ([<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref106">97</reflink>]) examined Mad students' experiences in a school that was proud of its anti-oppressive practice. They showed how the biomedical model of mental illness became dominant in the social work curriculum and school practices, stigmatizing, medicalizing and discriminating against students with mental health challenges. Informed by theories of the social model of disability (Race et al., [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref107">95</reflink>]) and intersectionality (Crenshaw, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref108">35</reflink>]), Reid and Poole argued that students' multiple understandings of their mental health challenges should be the basis for developing a truly anti-oppressive school practice.</p> <p>Thus, while power permeates all SUI work, without a theory of power much of the literature fails to locate it. Theorizing power helps educators and researchers make visible the workings of involvement practices and identify harmful exclusionary practices (such as the exclusion of knowledges of learners with mental health challenges).</p> <hd id="AN0175982043-13">How is power incorporated into the analysis of the effects of service user involvement?</hd> <p>Articles rarely put the concept of power to work when exploring the effects of SUI in MHPE. Instead, most made bold and aspirational claims about the impact of SUI, evincing a simplistic understanding of shifts in power relations (e.g., Byrne et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref109">24</reflink>]; Chambers et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref110">30</reflink>]). Authors postulated, for example, that involvement "breaks down traditional expectations by reconceptualizing categories of teacher and student, credentialed and non-credentialed, expert and client" (Sowers & Marin, [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref111">119</reflink>], p. 19) and that "the consequences for practice include better care and better outcomes, with greater service user satisfaction" (Maher et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref112">77</reflink>], p. 27), without providing evidence for these impacts and without unpacking the role of power in producing these effects. Furthermore, most of the articles focused solely on the benefits of involvement—benefits to trainees, mainly, and sometimes to service user educators—but the complicated processes, challenges and tensions inherent in this work remained invisible. These articles thus tended to portray transformation in a simplistic way, assuming that SUI inevitably brought about the desired change.</p> <p>There were, however, some articles that made more realistic claims about the impact of this type of education and substantiated these claims with a rigorous analysis of power (e.g., Hanson & Mitchell, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref113">63</reflink>]; Higgins et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref114">66</reflink>]; Masters & Forrest, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref115">80</reflink>]). These articles not only focused on benefits but also acknowledged and sometimes explored the challenges and tensions embedded in this work through the lens of power (e.g., Bailey, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref116">7</reflink>]; Roberts et al., [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref117">100</reflink>]). A number of authors, for example, argued that resistance from clinical faculty and learners reinforced uneven relations of power (e.g., Felton & Stickley, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref118">47</reflink>]; Stacey et al., [<reflink idref="bib123" id="ref119">123</reflink>]; Tew et al., [<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref120">129</reflink>]). Others discussed tokenism and co-optation, limited autonomy and safety, lack of payment and the absence of an employment contracts (e.g., Terry, [<reflink idref="bib127" id="ref121">127</reflink>]; Terry et al., [<reflink idref="bib128" id="ref122">128</reflink>]). These authors mobilized a more complex understanding of change and acknowledged the role of power in producing challenges and harmful effects. Moreover, they pointed to institutional and systemic power that constrained change, such as limited funding and infrastructural support (e.g., McCusker et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref123">82</reflink>]; Simpson, [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref124">115</reflink>]) and organizational and professional imperatives and cultures (e.g., Dorozenko et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref125">42</reflink>]). Some also asserted that the success of these programs was contingent on systems-level and cultural change: "It is only by developing structures that give users the power to influence mental health services, that user involvement will be moved from a position of mere rhetoric to one that is an effective and workable reality" (Wood & Wilson-Barnett, [<reflink idref="bib139" id="ref126">139</reflink>], p. 269).</p> <p>Fox ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref127">53</reflink>]) used Crenshaw's theory of intersectionality to reveal how her authority as an academic is undermined by her powerlessness as a service user in a society that stigmatized and marginalized mental distress. She reflected on the intersection of her professional and personal knowledges and her hybrid positionality as a service user and academic in social work education in the United Kingdom. While claiming that "it is a collective movement that challenges established power, rather than the actions of individual experts" (p. 965), Fox called for a collective model of involvement and for academia to ensure similar levels of power for those with professional and experiential expertise.</p> <p>These few examples notwithstanding, the literature thus mostly remains a collection of stories about SUI that hold promise for change and transformation, rather than showing whether and how these stories hold up to these promises. Using a theory of power is necessary for educators and researchers to understand how inclusion practices produce their complex, often limited, and sometimes harmful effects. Using critical theory could also allow authors to point out ways in which shifts of power could be realized and change be made possible.</p> <hd id="AN0175982043-14">How are structures of power considered?</hd> <p>While some authors recognized the institutional barriers to SUI, few engaged with the larger social and structural forces of power that influenced this work. Most took a micro-level approach to theorize individual-level change and focused on intersubjective relations divorced from the social context that produced these individuals and their relations. When taking such an approach to involvement initiatives, most articles drew attention to individual programs, participants and outcomes (e.g., Masters et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref128">81</reflink>]; Rouse & Torney, [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref129">104</reflink>]; Rush & Barker, [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref130">108</reflink>]). They emphasized changing individual skills and competencies, and were thus concerned with such things as confidence, respect, empathy stigma, and communication skills among service provider learners and empowerment among service user educators. Hence, this body of literature neglects the socio-cultural and political-economic contexts in which these actors and initiatives are situated, reducing complex structural issues, such as stigma, that affect mental health and mental health professions education into issues of intersubjective relations and of individual capacity and competence. The high proportion of program evaluations about time-limited SUI pilot initiatives driven by quality improvement and/or consumerist logic seemed to privilege this type of inquiry, which requires less of a methodological and theoretical apparatus than analyzing systems-level or structural change.</p> <p>Most of the articles that explicitly took up the language of power focused on the micro-level uneven and dynamic intersubjective relations among service user educators and service provider learners/faculty; however, they simplified the power dynamics by positioning these actors in a binary, replicating the service user–service provider dyad evidenced in the clinic (e.g., Bell et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref131">10</reflink>]; Bennetts et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref132">12</reflink>]; Cabiati & Raineri, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref133">26</reflink>]; Fokuo et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref134">49</reflink>]; Forrest et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref135">50</reflink>]; Speers & Lathlean, [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref136">120</reflink>]). These studies put the concept of power to use but constructed service user educators and service provider learners as necessarily distinct and homogenous categories, without recognizing the intersections between them and the social differences within them. In other words, it was rare that authors took a more nuanced approach, as did Tew et al. ([<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref137">129</reflink>]), whose study alluded to "students and lecturers potentially also having experience of using services or caring for others" (p. 317). Furthermore, only a handful of authors raised concerns about the inequities among service users that this binary obscures, or showed how the focus on the binary leads to limited representation and diversity among service user educators along the lines of gender, race, sexuality, age, class, religion and ability (e.g., Byrne et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref138">23</reflink>]; Fox, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref139">53</reflink>]). Few called out processes of marginalization affecting Black and LGBTQ + service users (Townend et al., [<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref140">132</reflink>]) or proposed a study of how racism, sexism, ageism and other structural forces impact service users and SUI in the academy (Reid & Poole, [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref141">97</reflink>]).</p> <p>A few papers incorporated a macro or structural approach to their analysis of power. They examined the experiences of service provider learners and educators with lived experience of mental distress (e.g., Lea et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref142">73</reflink>]; Reid & Poole, [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref143">97</reflink>]) and the service user academic role (e.g., Dorozenko et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref144">42</reflink>]; Fox, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref145">52</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref146">53</reflink>]; Roper & Happell, [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref147">101</reflink>]; Simons et al., [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref148">114</reflink>]), challenging the binary that this type of education often inadvertently reproduced. Notably, Walsh ([<reflink idref="bib138" id="ref149">138</reflink>]) relied on a Foucauldian poststructuralist feminist approach to power, using storytelling to elicit narratives of lived experience among service users, faculty and students in an occupational therapy course. Despite shared lived experiences of mental health challenges across service users, faculty and students, the dominant consumerist discourses and neoliberal capitalist practices, with their focus on performance measures and learning outcomes, positioned service users, faculty and students differently. Walsh observed that while "service users can challenge whose authority it is to speak about mental distress," faculty and students struggled to share their lived experience and thus remained "hidden knowers" (p. 230). The article concluded that the dominant consumerist discourses and neoliberal institutional practices undermined the possibility for democratic pedagogy in the classroom and social transformation in higher education.</p> <p>Overall, the articles seem to fall short of examining how structures of power permeate SUI initiatives. If we only look at individual change or shifts in power between service user educators and service provider learners/faculty in their distinct subject positions, we fail to recognize the larger social constraints on SUI and the important exclusions around whose knowledge counts among service users. Therefore, we must look at structural forces, such as sanism, ableism, colonialism, sexism, racism, religious discrimination and capitalism, to understand that these forces shape and constrain whose service user knowledge is considered legitimate in MHPE and to be able to address these epistemic injustices.</p> <hd id="AN0175982043-15">How is power shared in the inquiry and writing?</hd> <p>While this literature explored the inclusion of service users and service user knowledge in MHPE, it is ironic that service user educators were rarely included in the evaluation, research and writing that emerged (e.g., Ahuja & Williams, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref150">4</reflink>]; Bee et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref151">9</reflink>]; Manning et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref152">78</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref153">79</reflink>]; Paulson, [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref154">92</reflink>]; Speers & Lathlean, [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref155">120</reflink>]). The exclusion of service users from inquiry and writing took a variety of forms. In some articles, this exclusion was noted and attributed to a lack of time or other resources (e.g., Campbell & Wilson, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref156">27</reflink>]). Other authors described limited attempts to involve service users in some aspect of the inquiry (e.g., Rush, [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref157">107</reflink>]; Stacey et al., [<reflink idref="bib123" id="ref158">123</reflink>]; Unwin et al., [<reflink idref="bib134" id="ref159">134</reflink>]); for example, by noting that "the service user group agreed to the research questions" (Arblaster et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref160">6</reflink>]). In other cases, service users who contributed to the design or writing of the study were credited anonymously in the acknowledgment section rather than being cited as co-authors (e.g., Bennetts et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref161">12</reflink>]; di Mambro & Doody, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref162">40</reflink>]; O'Reilly et al., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref163">88</reflink>]). While this invisibilizing may have protected privacy, it also prevented service user educator-researchers from being recognized for their work and went against conventional ethics of collaboration and authorship.</p> <p>We also found a group of articles that included service users as authors in limited ways. In some cases, the authors stated that there were service users among them but did not identify which authors were service users (e.g., Stacey et al., [<reflink idref="bib123" id="ref164">123</reflink>]). In other instances, it was clear which author was the service user, but they were marginalized in the body of the article in other ways; for example, by referring to faculty educators as "we" and service users as "they" (e.g., Beadle et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref165">8</reflink>]; Benbow et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref166">11</reflink>]) or by representing the experiences of service user educators but not faculty as "data" (e.g., Blackhall et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref167">18</reflink>]; Cleminson & Moesby, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref168">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>In contrast, we found a small number of articles where power was shared in the research and writing. Often relying on participatory research to develop and study SUI in education, these authors positioned themselves in the article and used reflexive writing to unpack the complex and messy processes and practices of collaboration (e.g., Dorozenko et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref169">42</reflink>]; Reid & Poole, [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref170">97</reflink>]; Roberts et al., [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref171">100</reflink>]). For example, in their article, service user/consumer educator Roper and service provider educator Happell moved beyond the binary and made evident that service users could be academics (Roper & Happell, [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref172">101</reflink>]). They took turns to reflect on their work facilitating and navigating a mental health service user academic post in an Australian nursing school, enacting the democratic, egalitarian principles of co-production in their writing.</p> <p>Taken together, these findings show that involvement practices typically broke down in the studying and writing about SUI initiatives, leading to unethical authorship practices and the exclusion of service user knowledge from these privileged processes of knowledge production and mobilization. These practices also reproduced the binary of service user educators and service provider faculty/learners/researchers whereby service users could not be faculty or faculty service users. Recognizing epistemic injustices perpetuated in the inquiry and writing about SUI can enable us to address it.</p> <hd id="AN0175982043-16">How do the authors engage with survivor research and Mad studies?</hd> <p>Although some articles mention the grassroots c/s/x movements as an explanation for SUI in MHPE, rarely did authors cite and build on the rich body of work of survivor and Mad scholars. Some critical scholars provided insights about this disconnection, showing that service users connected to social movements are often excluded from MHPE (Collier & Stickley, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref173">33</reflink>]; Dorozenko et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref174">42</reflink>]; Tew et al., [<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref175">129</reflink>]; Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib138" id="ref176">138</reflink>]). Fox ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref177">53</reflink>]), for instance, highlighted the preference for individual experts who represented themselves in MHPE over those who tapped into collective knowledges and epistemologies. Going further, Tew et al. ([<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref178">129</reflink>]) showed how mainstream SUI can actually be used to curtail service user epistemologies by "'flesh[ing] out' existing academic/professional knowledge and theories, rather than offering an opportunity for them to develop and articulate their own experientially-based perspectives which may potentially be challenging of such orthodoxies" (p. 318, citing Beresford & Croft, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref179">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although they cite the work of a survivor scholar, Tew et al. ([<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref180">129</reflink>]) did not mention Beresford's position in the field of survivor research and Mad studies. The omission means that for the many readers unaware of Beresford's affiliations, this important recognition of collectivized and politicized service user knowledge was likely to remain unnoticed. Not crediting work properly to service user scholars perpetuated the marginalization of survivor/Mad scholarship in mental health professions education and missed the opportunity to acknowledge that service users could be faculty.</p> <p>The disconnection from survivor and Mad scholarship in our dataset was partially due to the fact that only a few authors in our review identified as "survivor" or "Mad" scholars and explicitly located themselves within the c/s/x movements and the associated scholarships of these movements (e.g., Reid & Poole, [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref181">97</reflink>]; Roper & Happell, [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref182">101</reflink>]). We found only one article that explicitly connected its analysis to survivor research and Mad studies and the broader field of critical disability studies. Reid and Poole drew on the social model of disability that critiqued the biomedical view of mental illness and argued that mental health challenges were rooted in an oppressive and disabling society (p. 3, citing Dossa, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref183">43</reflink>], and Race et al., [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref184">95</reflink>]). They cited a handful of survivors, activists and scholars from the "burgeoning field of Mad studies" to highlight the historical work that raised concerns about Mad people's rights and freedoms (p. 210, citing Chamberlin, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref185">29</reflink>]; Church, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref186">31</reflink>]; LeFrançois et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref187">74</reflink>]; Reaume, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref188">96</reflink>]). Breaking down the binaries reproduced in mental health professions education, they claimed that the work of involvement must start with Mad students who were already in health professions education programs and incorporate the teachings of the sociopolitical history of madness in the classroom.</p> <p>Looking at citation practices, we see that those who do not properly engage with survivor and Mad scholarship perpetuate the binaries of SUI in MHPE and contribute to the exclusion of collectivized and politicized service user knowledge. When, however, authors cite and discuss the work of survivors and Mad scholars, they move beyond the binaries and the individualized and embodied practices of SUI—those practices that engage individual service users—and bring to the center the historical and ongoing, often critical and political service user scholarship in MHPE. This scholarship problematizes the dominance of the biomedical understanding of mental health challenges and critiques mainstream forms of SUI that reproduce the status quo in mental health professions education.</p> <hd id="AN0175982043-17">Discussion</hd> <p>Our review has found that most scholarship and research in the area of SUI in mental health professions education has failed to seriously contend with the complexities of power relations embedded in this work. While power permeates SUI in mental health professions education, it is rarely made visible through the rationales that authors articulate, the theories they apply, the analysis and interpretations they develop, the social and structural forces they consider, the processes of inquiry and writing they follow or the citation practices they use to engage with the work of survivor researchers and Mad studies scholars. As the authors leave power largely invisible and unexamined, our team has identified a series of absences or, rather, limitations in the literature. We argue that these limitations matter (Paton et al., [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref189">91</reflink>]) because by uncovering them, we can shed light on four types of epistemic injustices re/produced in the literature on SUI in mental health professions education: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref190">1</reflink>) not recognizing health professional trainees' and faculty's lived experiences as legitimate knowledge; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref191">2</reflink>) excluding from SUI practices service users who come from racialized and marginalized groups; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref192">3</reflink>) devaluing service users in the processes of research and writing; and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref193">4</reflink>) silencing survivor and Mad scholars' collective knowledges in MHPE. In the following section, we discuss these epistemic injustices and why they might exist in the literature.</p> <p>The first epistemic injustice we have identified prohibits mental health professionals and trainees with lived experiences of mental health challenges from enacting or drawing on our/their knowledges and identities as service users (Crichton et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref194">37</reflink>]; Fricker, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref195">54</reflink>]; Stergiopoulos et al., [<reflink idref="bib124" id="ref196">124</reflink>]). This epistemic injustice is produced by the binary relations between service user educators and service provider learners/faculty/researchers perpetuated by the absence of power or by the micro-level approach to power in the literature. Accordingly, most of the literature eclipses the possibility of blurring these categories and subject positions. Excluding service provider faculty and learners with lived experience from SUI reflects the global underrepresentation of service providers with disabilities and the historical exclusion of students and faculty with lived experience of psychiatric and other disabilities from health professions education and, we add, from health professions education research and scholarship (Jones & Brown, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref197">67</reflink>]; Kalathil & Jones, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref198">68</reflink>]; Meeks, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref199">85</reflink>]; Meeks & Moreland, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref200">86</reflink>]). This epistemic exclusion can also be traced back to the relational, cultural and structural barriers that service providers and learners with disabilities have to navigate in health professional institutions, including the deeply embedded ableist and sanist hidden curriculum that defines what it means to be a competent service provider and that prevents disclosure by service provider learners and faculty.</p> <p>The second type of epistemic injustice discredits a wide range of service user knowledges held by people who simultaneously inhabit other marginalized social positions resulting from racism, colonialism, classism, sexism, heteronormativity, ableism, religious discrimination and other structural forces (Kalathil & Jones, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref201">68</reflink>]). Given the near total absence of discussion of intersectionality in the articles we reviewed, it is highly likely that SUI in this literature reflects participation of service users from majority groups, as survivor researchers Rose and Kalathil ([<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref202">103</reflink>]) suggested. As with the first epistemic injustice described above, ignoring intersectionality also reflects the binary relations between service user educators and service provider learners/faculty/researchers and the focus on individual- or intersubjective-level change in the literature. The articles thus miss the opportunity to problematize the lack of diversity in SUI scholarship, which largely emerges in the Anglo-colonial world, and eclipses the intersecting structures of power that underpin it. Without the use of critical theory, those structures remain invisible, perpetuating many types of discrimination in HPE (Paton et al., [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref203">90</reflink>]; Rose & Kalathil, [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref204">103</reflink>]; Zaidi et al., [<reflink idref="bib140" id="ref205">140</reflink>]).</p> <p>The third type of epistemic injustice we have highlighted devalues service users in the privileged processes of knowledge production and mobilization, locking us/them in education and excluding us/them from research, writing and authorship (Groot et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref206">62</reflink>]). This third epistemic injustice is produced by the power dynamics of SUI scholarship that subjugate service user educators vis-à-vis service provider faculty/learners/researchers and thus maintains the binary established in the literature. This epistemic exclusion not only reinforces the devaluing of service users as faculty or faculty as service users, but also reproduces hierarchies in HPE, which makes scholarship and research inaccessible for many (Bonifacino et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref207">20</reflink>]). The inequities in inquiry and writing can be traced back to what survivor researcher Beresford ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref208">14</reflink>]) called a consumerist model of involvement, divorcing the concept of co-production from its roots in participatory methodologies, and reinforcing dominant hierarchical methodologies of inquiry, such as program evaluation.</p> <p>The fourth type of epistemic injustice marginalizes survivor and Mad scholarship in MHPE. The omission of this work from the citations of the reviewed literature shows how their critiques, and thus certain service user epistemologies, are silenced. Just as citations create a gravitational pull to a story, citational absences also cement stories (Hemmings, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref209">65</reflink>]). Hence, the infrequent citation of survivor and Mad studies scholars functions to exclude the critical and political knowledges that survivor and Mad scholars and collectives have created in the SUI field and beyond (Beresford, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref210">14</reflink>]; Jones & Brown, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref211">67</reflink>]; Poole, [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref212">93</reflink>]; Voronka & Costa, [<reflink idref="bib136" id="ref213">136</reflink>]). Echoing many critical and Mad scholars before us, we argue that this disconnection locks SUI and its literature into a particular version of the present, covering the tracks of decades of stories, insights, demands, and critiques that seek social justice for mental health service users (Costa et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref214">34</reflink>]; de Bie, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref215">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>Turning attention away from social movements, collectives and communities toward a focus on individuals reflects a move toward neoliberal health care and HPE (Beresford, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref216">14</reflink>]; Burchell et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref217">22</reflink>]; Gordon & O'Brien, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref218">57</reflink>]; Madden & Speed, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref219">76</reflink>]). Joining survivor/Mad and critical scholars (Rose & Kalathil, [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref220">103</reflink>]; Voronka & Costa, [<reflink idref="bib136" id="ref221">136</reflink>]; Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib138" id="ref222">138</reflink>]), our co-produced critical review provides insights into how the consumerist logic permeating much of the literature focuses on individuals and contributes to the lack of attention to power embedded in this work, silencing criticality, neglecting historical, social and structural considerations, and producing a series of epistemic exclusions in the SUI literature. Consumerism thus undermines the rise of activism—those service users and service user movements that claim their rights for better care and demand that the state and its institutions fulfill their duties (Renedo & Marston, [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref223">98</reflink>]). To put it differently, consumerist concerns depoliticize and dehistoricize SUI practices and their literature, offering another explanation for the absence of critical analysis of power, the marginalization of survivor/Mad studies and the failure to democratize knowledge production in SUI.</p> <hd id="AN0175982043-18">Conclusion</hd> <p>In this co-produced critical review of the literature on SUI in MHPE, we have argued that most of the work misses the opportunity to rigorously explore power in inclusion practices, leading to a reductionistic view of SUI and to a series of epistemic injustices. We have also argued that the limited criticality and constraining of legitimate service user knowledge can be traced back to the neoliberal socio-cultural and politico-economic context in which mental health profession operate. Without a critical lens, SUI ends up standing in for meaningful change, suppressing its force and possibilities, thereby effectively blocking social justice outcomes and systems transformation. Echoing survivor/Mad and critical scholars (de Bie, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref224">39</reflink>]; Jones & Brown, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref225">67</reflink>]; Kalathil & Jones, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref226">68</reflink>]; Sapouna, [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref227">110</reflink>]; Tseris, [<reflink idref="bib133" id="ref228">133</reflink>]; Voronka & Costa, [<reflink idref="bib136" id="ref229">136</reflink>]; Voronka & Grant, [<reflink idref="bib137" id="ref230">137</reflink>]), we have shown that uncritical, unethical, depoliticized and ahistorical involvement practices can paradoxically serve to reinforce existing power relations, structures, epistemologies and institutional agendas. By endorsing SUI but ignoring power, by making aspirational claims about the effects of SUI but disregarding structural change, this literature participates in what Voronka and Costa ([<reflink idref="bib136" id="ref231">136</reflink>]) called "new ways to promote the benevolence of these systems" (p. 1).</p> <p>Conversely, by closely reading the handful of articles that contend with power and demonstrate the shifts in power relations in their work and beyond, we can begin to imagine a more critical, ethical, just and equitable service user involvement that engages with the insights and demands of c/s/x movements and our/their scholarship. Our own research process—built on a deep commitment to reflexivity, relational accountability, equity, and epistemic justice—similarly points to such possibilities, and our set of critical questions provide an analytical framework for others to follow.</p> <hd id="AN0175982043-19">A call to action</hd> <p>If the democratic, egalitarian, social justice-oriented transformative potential of SUI is to be realized, it is crucial that the power relations that permeate this work are foregrounded.</p> <p>We thus call on ourselves, other mental health professions educators and researchers, as well as on the wider HPE field, to meet the following challenges: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref232">1</reflink>) embody relational accountability to service user collaborators and to service user movements and scholarship by centering diverse collective service user epistemologies, and by recognizing that shifts in power can only occur if shifts in conventional epistemic paradigms—biomedical knowledge about mental health challenges—take hold; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref233">2</reflink>) recognize and integrate the knowledges of a wide range of service users, including those who are service providers/educators/learners/researchers and those who inhabit structurally marginalized social positions; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref234">3</reflink>) enact equitable, ethical and just collaborations, including in research, writing and authorship, by weaving SUI through the inquiry and writing, and by using both critical reflexivity and appropriate authorship credits; (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref235">4</reflink>) theorize power in robust and rigorous ways by using it to unpack the dynamic and complicated relations of power among and within service user educators, service provider learners and faculty, and by engaging with the tensions and contradictions that muddle this work; and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref236">5</reflink>) advocate structural change by uncovering the institutional and structural forces that limit the inclusion of diverse service user knowledges and by addressing the critical demands and insights brought forward by survivor/Mad communities, movements and scholarships over the past decades.</p> <hd id="AN0175982043-20">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>The authors would like to thank Stella Ng for her methodological guidance; Brenda McGovern, Tucker Gordon and Sean Kidd for their contributions at the start of our project; Mushfika Choudhury and Oshan Fernando for their assistance screening articles; and Hema Zbogar for copyediting our manuscript. We also acknowledge CAMH Education and Sunnybrook Foundation for supporting the service user educator team members. Sacha Agrawal is supported in part by an Academic Scholar Award from the Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto.</p> <hd id="AN0175982043-21">Author contributions</hd> <p>The two first authors, CK and SA, drafted the manuscript. All authors contributed to the conceptualization of the study. TR conducted the literature search; CK and LdB developed the analytical framework; and all authors performed literature screening, analysis and draft revisions. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0175982043-22">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0175982043-23">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>The authors do not have any competing interests.</p> <hd id="AN0175982043-24">Ethical approval</hd> <p>Not applicable.</p> <hd id="AN0175982043-25">Appendix</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0175982043-26">Appendix 1: search strategy</hd> <p>Database: Ovid MEDLINE(R) < 1946 to September Week 2 2018 ></p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> (co-produc* or coproduc*).mp. (2711)</item> <p></p> <item> (co-design* or codesign*).mp. (<reflink idref="bib268" id="ref237">268</reflink>)</item> <p></p> <item> (co-creat* or cocreat*).mp. (<reflink idref="bib430" id="ref238">430</reflink>)</item> <p></p> <item> (collaborat* adj2 methodol*).mp. (<reflink idref="bib199" id="ref239">199</reflink>)</item> <p></p> <item> ((patient* or client* or service user* or consumer* or survivor* or informant* or lived experience* or research subject* or family or families or peer*) adj2 (educat* or teach* or moderat* or facilitat* or participa* or involv* or instruct* or navigat* or advisor*)).mp. (225794)</item> <p></p> <item> ((collaborat* or participatory) adj2 research*).mp. (10404)</item> <p></p> <item> ((community-based or experience-based) adj2 research*).mp. (4898)</item> <p></p> <item> ((patient* or client* or service user* or consumer* or survivor* or informant* or lived experience* or research subject* or family or families or peer*) adj2 active* adj2 (involve* or collaborar* or participa*)).mp. (<reflink idref="bib506" id="ref240">506</reflink>)</item> <p></p> <item> ((patient* or client* or service user* or consumer* or survivor* or informant* or lived experience* or research subject* or family or families or peer* or communit*) adj2 engag*).mp. (8668)</item> <p></p> <item> ((patient* or client* or service user* or consumer* or survivor* or informant* or lived experience* or research subject* or family or families or peer* or communit*) adj led).mp. (2203)</item> <p></p> <item> ((user*-centred or user*-centered or patient*-centred or patient*-centered or client-centered or client-centred or experience-based or lived experience*) adj2 (partnership* or research* or collaborat* or education)).mp. (<reflink idref="bib871" id="ref241">871</reflink>)</item> <p></p> <item> patient participation/ (22879)</item> <p></p> <item> community participation/ (15905)</item> <p></p> <item> or/1-13 [co-production concept] (261369)</item> <p></p> <item> ((health or healthcare) adj2 (profession* or work*) adj3 (educat* or train* or course* or class* or workshop* or module* or curricul* or program* or student* or graduat* or accreditat* or qualification*)).mp. (14543)</item> <p></p> <item> ((psychiatry or psychiatrist*) adj3 (educat* or train* or course* or class* or workshop* or module* or curricul* or program* or student* or graduat* or accreditat* or qualification* or resident* or residency or residencies or intern*)).mp. (4661)</item> <p></p> <item> ((psychology or psychologist*) adj3 (educat* or train* or course* or class* or workshop* or module* or curricul* or program* or student* or graduat* or accreditat* or qualification* or resident* or residency or residencies or intern*)).mp. (5129)</item> <p></p> <item> (psycholog* adj3 (educat* or train* or course* or class* or workshop* or module* or curricul* or program* or student* or graduat* or accreditat* or qualification* or resident* or residency or residencies or intern*)).mp. (8954)</item> <p></p> <item> (medical adj3 (educat* or train* or course* or class* or workshop* or module* or curricul* or program* or student* or graduat* or accreditat* or qualification* or resident* or residency or residencies or intern*)).mp. (181202)</item> <p></p> <item> ((physician* or doctor*) adj3 (educat* or train* or course* or class* or workshop* or module* or curricul* or program* or student* or graduat* or accreditat* or qualification* or resident* or residency or residencies or intern*)).mp. (32199)</item> <p></p> <item> ((nurse* or nursing) adj3 (educat* or train* or course* or class* or workshop* or module* or curricul* or program* or student* or graduat* or accreditat* or qualification* or intern* or placement* or co-op or co-ops or coop or coops)).mp. (115150)</item> <p></p> <item> (social work* adj3 (educat* or train* or course* or class* or workshop* or module* or curricul* or program* or student* or graduat* or accreditat* or qualification* or intern* or placement* or co-op or co-ops or coop or coops)).mp. (1410)</item> <p></p> <item> (occupational therap* adj3 (educat* or train* or course* or class* or workshop* or module* or curricul* or program* or student* or graduat* or accreditat* or qualification* or intern* or placement* or co-op or co-ops or coop or coops)).mp. (1471)</item> <p></p> <item> ((addict* or substance*) adj2 (counsel* or worker*) adj3 (educat* or train* or course* or class* or workshop* or module* or curricul* or program* or student* or graduat* or accreditat* or qualification*)).mp. (<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref242">34</reflink>)</item> <p></p> <item> (mental* adj2 (profession* or work*) adj3 (educat* or train* or course* or class* or workshop* or module* or curricul* or program* or student* or graduat* or accreditat* or qualification*)).mp. (<reflink idref="bib610" id="ref243">610</reflink>)</item> <p></p> <item> ((pharmacy or pharmacist*) adj3 (educat* or train* or course* or class* or workshop* or module* or curricul* or program* or student* or graduat* or accreditat* or qualification*)).mp. (10505)</item> <p></p> <item> education, medical/ or education, medical, continuing/ or education, medical, graduate/ or "internship and residency"/ or education, medical, undergraduate/ or teaching rounds/ or exp education, nursing/ or exp education, pharmacy/ (236920)</item> <p></p> <item> or/15-27 [healthcare education] (364915)</item> <p></p> <item> ((mental* or psychiatr*) adj3 (health or ill* or diagnos* or disorder* or condition* or challenge* or issue* or disabilit*)).mp. (330572)</item> <p></p> <item> ((substance* or drug* or alcohol* or tobacco or nicotine or cannabis or marijuana or opioid* or opiate* or heroin or cocaine) adj1 ("use" or misus* or abus* or addict* or depend*)).mp. (206679)</item> <p></p> <item> stigma*.mp. (26078)</item> <p></p> <item> trauma*.mp. (336499)</item> <p></p> <item> (recovery or recoveries).mp. (401979)</item> <p></p> <item> (posttraumatic or post-traumatic or PTSD).mp. (60490)</item> <p></p> <item> depressi*.mp. (371340)</item> <p></p> <item> bipolar.mp. (64863)</item> <p></p> <item> anxiety disorder*.mp. (42101)</item> <p></p> <item> (obsessive compulsive or OCD).mp. (18302)</item> <p></p> <item> borderline personalit*.mp. (7253)</item> <p></p> <item> schizophreni*.mp. (125255)</item> <p></p> <item> (schizoaffective or schizo-affective).mp. (5010)</item> <p></p> <item> (psychosis or psychotic or psychoses).mp. (76817)</item> <p></p> <item> exp mental disorders/ (1134218)</item> <p></p> <item> exp substance-related disorders/ (260055)</item> <p></p> <item> or/29-44 [MH or A] (2197400)</item> <p></p> <item> 14 and 28 and 45 (2330)</item> </ulist> <p>***</p> <hd id="AN0175982043-27">Appendix 2: Extraction sheet template</hd> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p><italic>Article overview</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>What type of article is this (e.g., program evaluation, research study, commentary or review)?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>What is the stated purpose of the article, if available?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>How were service users credited in the work (e.g., as authors or acknowledged at the end of the article)?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>If service users appear among authors, where are they named in the order (first author, second, last author, etc.)?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold><italic>Health professions education program</italic></bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>What is the name of the education program, if available?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Which area of health professions is it in?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>In which country did the work take place?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>How is it embedded in the curriculum (mandatory/elective education; in classroom/hospital/ community)?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>How long is the program (number of classes/meetings, number of hours, duration of the program)?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>How is education provided? (lectures, workshops, online modules, informal meetings, small group discussions, etc.)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Who are the learners in the program? (undergraduate/postgraduate students or health care professionals undertaking continued professional training or faculty development)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Who are involved as service users in the program? (service useres with lived experience of mental health challenges, learning disabilities, substance use challenges, intellectual and developmental disability, dementia, etc.)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>How many service users are involved?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>How are service users recruited?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>How are service users involved (in curriculum development, delivery, evaluation, assessment, etc.)?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>How are service users compensated?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Who facilitates or directs the program?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>What do the program creators hope to do for the learners?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>What is the program content (briefly described)?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>How is service user knowledge conveyed?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>What do service users focus on?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>What does the program achieve? And how are the outcomes determined? (e.g., authors' or program leads' reflections, program evaluation, research)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold><italic>Study details</italic></bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>How do the authors describe the research paradigm of the study (e.g., positivism, post-positivism, constructivism, interpretivism, critical theory)?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>What theoretical approach do the authors rely on to make sense of the data?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>What is the stated research question?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>How do the authors describe the research design (e.g., qualitative/quantitative; exploratory, evaluation, conceptual, pilot, randomized control trial study)?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>How are service users involved in the research?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Who are the study participants and how many are there (learners, service users, program directors/facilitators)?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>What methods are used to collect data (e.g., interviews, surveys, observations, questionnaires, focus groups)?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>How do the authors analyze the data?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>What are the main findings of the study? Or what are the main themes/arguments/points that are put forward?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>What limitations are acknowledged?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold><italic>Discussion of power</italic></bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>How do the authors explicitly or implicitly name/define/understand power? What language/words/terms do they use to describe power relations? (e.g., inequity, privilege, oppression, intersectionality, power)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>What theory is used to describe power relations, if any? What theory/theorist is used to describe power relations, if any?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Why do the authors think addressing power is important?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Whose interactions/relations are described through power?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>How do the authors describe the influence/impact that power relations have? (e.g., power in research/in the program/in the wider contexts/structures/discourses. What does power produce? Do they discuss resistance or other challenges?)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>What modifications or changes do the authors propose to mitigate or respond to power relations?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold><italic>Supplemental information</italic></bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>What do the authors find to be the most significant implication/recommendation of their work?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Please flag this article if you think it is so important that everyone should read it</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Please flag this article if this extraction rubric does not adequately capture its essence</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Please flag this article if you think it does not meet eligibility criteria and should be excluded</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Do you have any additional comments?</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0175982043-28">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0175982043-29"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Agrawal S, Edwards M. Upside down: The consumer as advisor to a psychiatrist. Psychiatric Services. 2013. 10.1176/appi.ps.640413. 23543165</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref53" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Agrawal S, Capponi P, López J, Kidd S, Ringsted C, Wiljer D, Soklaridis S. From surviving to advising: A novel course pairing mental health and addictions service users as advisors to senior psychiatry residents. Academic Psychiatry. 2016. 10.1007/s40596-016-0533-z. 27056051</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref13" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Agrawal S, Kalocsai C, Capponi P, Kidd S, Ringsted C, Wiljer D, Soklaridis S. "It was great to break down the walls between patient and provider": Liminality in a co-produced advisory course for psychiatry residents. Advances in Health Sciences Education. 2020. 10.1007/s10459-020-09991-w. 32920699</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref150" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Ahuja AS, Williams R. Telling stories: Learning from patients' and families' experiences of specialist child and adolescent mental health services. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 2010. 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00904.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref24" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Arblaster K, Mackenzie L, Willis K. Mental health consumer participation in education: A structured literature review. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal. 2015; 62; 5: 341-362. 10.1111/1440-1630.12205. 26192631</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref160" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Arblaster K, Mackenzie L, Willis K. Service user involvement in health professional education: Is it effective in promoting recovery-oriented practice?. Journal of Mental Health Training, Education and Practice,. 2015. 10.1108/JMHTEP-04-2015-0016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref116" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bailey D. Using an action research approach to involving service users in the assessment of professional competence. European Journal of Social Work. 2005. 10.1080/13691450500085240</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref165" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Beadle M, Needham Y, Dearing M. Collaboration with service users to develop reusable learning objects: The ROOT to success. Nurse Education in Practice. 2012. 10.1016/j.nepr.2012.04.005. 22634061</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref151" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bee PE, Baker JA, Richards DA, Loftus SJ, Bailey L, Lovell K, Woods P, Cox D. Organizing and delivering training for acute mental health services: A discussion paper. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. 2005. 10.1111/j.1365-2850.2004.00805.x. 15788030</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bell JS, Whitehead P, Aslani P, Sacker S, Chen TF. Design and implementation of an educational partnership between community pharmacists and consumer educators in mental health care. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. 2006. 10.5688/aj700228. 17149408. 1636970</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Benbow SM, Taylor L, Mustafa N, Morgan K. Design, delivery and evaluation of teaching by service users and carers. Educational Gerontology. 2011. 10.1080/03601277.2011.559849</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bennetts W, Pinches A, Paluch T, Fossey E. Real lives, real jobs: Sustaining consumer perspective work in the mental health sector. Advances in Mental Health. 2013. 10.5172/jamh.2013.11.3.313</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bennett-Weston A, Gay S, Anderson ES. A theoretical systematic review of patient involvement in health and social care education. Advances in Health Sciences Education. 2023; 28: 279-304. 10.1007/s10459-022-10137-3. 35841446</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beresford P. User involvement in research and evaluation: Liberation or regulation?. Social Policy and Society. 2002; 1; 2: 95-105. 10.1017/s1474746402000222</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beresford P, Croft S. Service user knowledges and the social construction of social work. Journal of Social Work. 2001; 9; 3: 295-316. 10.1080/02615479.2012.644944</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beresford PLowes L, Hulatt I. Theory and practice of user involvement: making the connection with public policy and practice. Involving service users in health and social care research. 2005; Routledge</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Billon G, Attoe C, Marshall-Tate K, Riches S, Wheildon J, Cross S. Simulation training to support healthcare professionals to meet the health needs of people with intellectual disabilities. Advances in Mental Health and Intellectual Disabilities. 2016. 10.1108/AMHID-08-2016-0018</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blackhall A, Schafer T, Kent L, Nightingale M. Service user involvement in nursing students' training. Mental Health Practice. 2012. 10.7748/mhp2012.09.16.1.23.c9280</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bombard Y, Baker GR, Orlando E, Fancott C, Bhatia P, Casalino S, Onate K, Denis JL, Pomey MP. Engaging patients to improve quality of care: A systematic review. Implementation Science. 2018. 10.1186/s13012-018-0784-z. 30045735. 6060529</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bonifacino E, Ufomata EO, Farkas AH, Turner R, Corbelli JA. Mentorship of underrepresented physicians and trainees in academic medicine: A systematic review. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2021; 36; 4: 1023-1034. 10.1007/s11606-020-06478-7. 33532959. 7852467</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown M, Jones N. Service user participation within the mental health system: Deepening engagement. Psychiatric Services. 2021; 72; 8: 963-965. 10.1176/appi.ps.202000494. 33657837</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burchell G, Gordon C, Miller P. The foucault effect: studies in governmentality with two lectures by and an interview with michel foucault. 1991; University of Chicago Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Byrne D, Clarke L, Grant A, McGowan B. User involvement in curriculum and nursing practice development, The 4th Mental Health Nursing Conference, incorporating the 2nd Marion Beeforth Lecture, University of Brighton, 16 April 2003. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. 2003; 10; 4: 505-507. 10.1046/j.1365-2850.2003.00657.x. 12887646</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Byrne L, Happell B, Welch T, Moxham LJ. "Things you can't learn from books": Teaching recovery from a lived experience perspective. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing. 2013. 10.1111/j.1447-0349.2012.00875.x. 23586597</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Byrne L, Platania-Phung C, Happell B, Harris S, Bradshaw J. Changing nursing student attitudes to consumer participation in mental health services: A survey study of traditional and lived experience-led education. Issues in Mental Health Nursing. 2014. 10.3109/01612840.2014.888604. 25397660</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cabiati E, Raineri ML. Learning from service users' involvement: A research about changing stigmatizing attitudes in social work students. Social Work Education. 2016. 10.1080/02615479.2016.1178225</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campbell M, Wilson C. Service users' experiences of participation in clinical psychology training. Journal of Mental Health Training, Education and Practice. 2017. 10.1108/JMHTEP-03-2017-0018</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chadwick A. A dignified approach to improving the patient experience: Promoting privacy, dignity and respect through collaborative training. Nurse Education in Practice. 2012. 10.1016/j.nepr.2011.12.006. 23140800</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chamberlin J. The ex-patients movement: Where we've been and where we're going. Journal of Mind and Behaviour. 1990; 11; 3/4: 323-336</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chambers M, Gillard S, Turner K, Borschmann R. Evaluation of an educational practice development programme for staff working in mental health inpatient environments. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. 2013. 10.1111/j.1365-2850.2012.01964.x. 23171200</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Church K. Forbidden narratives: Critical autobiography as social science. 1995; Gordon & Breach</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cleminson S, Moesby A. Service user involvement in occupational therapy education: An evolving involvement. Journal of Mental Health Training, Education and Practice. 2013. 10.1108/17556221311307989</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Collier R, Stickley T. From service user involvement to collaboration in mental health nurse education: Developing a practical philosophy for change. Journal of Mental Health Training, Education and Practice,. 2010. 10.5042/jmhtep.2010.0685</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Costa L, Voronka J, Landry D, Reid J, Mcfarlane B, Reville D, Church K. "Recovering our stories": A small act of resistance. Studies in Social Justice. 2012; 6; 1: 85-101. 10.26522/ssj.v6i1.1070</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crenshaw KW. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. 1989; University of Chicago Legal Forum: 139-168</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crenshaw KW. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review. 1991; 43: 1241-1299. 10.2307/1229039</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crichton P, Carel H, Kidd IJ. Epistemic injustice in psychiatry. BJPsych Bulletin. 2017; 41; 2: 65-70. 10.1192/pb.bp.115.050682. 28400962. 5376720</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davidson L. Living outside mental illness: Qualitative studies of recovery in schizophrenia. 2003; New York University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Bie A. Teaching with madness/"mental illness" autobiographies in postsecondary education: Ethical and epistemological implications. Medical Humanities. 2021. 10.1136/medhum-2020-011974. 33495372</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> di Mambro BJ, Doody GA. Service user organisations: An untapped teaching resource. Psychiatric Bulletin. 2009. 10.1192/pb.bp.107.019299</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dogra N, Anderson J, Edwards R, Cavendish S. Service user perspectives about their roles in undergraduate medical training about mental health. Medical Teacher. 2008. 10.1080/01421590802047273. 18608958</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dorozenko KP, Ridley S, Martin R, Mahboub L. A journey of embedding mental health lived experience in social work education. Social Work Education. 2016. 10.1080/02615479.2016.1214255</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dossa P. Disability, marginality and the nation-state. Negotiating social markers of difference Fahimeh's story. Disability and Society. 2006; 21; 4: 345-358. 10.1080/09687590600680111</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dotson K. Tracking epistemic violence, tracking practices of silencing. Hypatia. 2011; 26; 2: 236-257. 10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01177.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fallon D, Warne T, McAndrew S, McLaughlin H. An adult education: Learning and understanding what young service users and carers really, really want in terms of their mental well being. Nurse Education Today. 2012. 10.1016/j.nedt.2011.06.002. 21752499</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Faulkner A. Survivor research and Mad Studies: The role and value of experiential knowledge in mental health research. Disability & Society. 2017. 10.1080/09687599.2017.1302320</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Felton A, Stickley T. Pedagogy, power and service user involvement. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. 2004. 10.1111/j.1365-2850.2004.00693.x. 14723644</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferguson G, Abi-Jaoude A, Johnson A, Saikaly R, Woldemichael B, Maharaj A, Soklaridis S, Nirula L, Hasan M, Wiljer D. Collaborating with families: Exploring family member and health care provider perspectives on engaging families within medical education. Academic Psychiatry. 2018. 10.1007/s40596-017-0878-y. 29435945</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fokuo JK, Goldrick V, Rossetti J, Wahlstrom C, Kocurek C, Larson J, Corrigan P. Decreasing the stigma of mental illness through a student-nurse mentoring program: A qualitative study. Community Mental Health Journal. 2017. 10.1007/s10597-016-0016-4. 28744753</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forrest S, Risk I, Masters H, Brown N. Mental health service user involvement in nurse education: Exploring the issues. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. 2000. 10.1046/j.1365-2850.2000.00262.x. 11022511</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foucault M. Madness and civilization: A history of insanity in the age of reason [translated by Howard, R.]. 1965; Pantheon Books</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fox J. The view from inside: Understanding service user involvement in health and social care education. Disability and Society. 2011. 10.1080/09687599.2011.544057</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fox J. Being a service user and a social work academic: Balancing expert identities. Social Work Education. 2016. 10.1080/02615479.2016.1227315</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fricker M. Epistemic justice as a condition of political freedom?. Synthese. 2013; 190; 7: 1317-1332. 10.1007/s11229-012-0227-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frisby R. User involvement in mental health branch education: Client review presentations. Nurse Education Today. 2001; 21; 8: 663-669. 1:STN:280:DC%2BD387lt1GmtA%3D%3D. 10.1054/nedt.2001.0669. 11884180</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gibson A, Britten N, Lynch J. Theoretical directions for an emancipatory concept of patient and public involvement. Health. 2012; 16; 5: 531-547. 10.1177/1363459312438563. 22535648</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gordon S, O'Brien AJ. Co-production: Power, problems and possibilities. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing. 2018; 27; 4: 1201-1203. 10.1111/inm.12504. 29939473</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal. 2009; 26; 2: 91-108. 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x. 19490148</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greenhalgh T, Wieringa S. Is it time to drop the "knowledge translation" metaphor? A critical literature review. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2011; 104; 12: 501-509. 10.1258/jrsm.2011.110. 22179293. 3241522</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greenhalgh T, Jackson C, Shaw S, Janamian T. Achieving research impact through co-creation in community-based health services: Literature review and case study. Milbank Quarterly. 2016; 94; 2: 392-429. 10.1111/1468-0009.12197. 27265562. 4911728</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greenhalgh T, Hinton L, Finlay T, Macfarlane A, Fahy N, Clyde B, Chant A. Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co-design pilot. Health Expectations. 2019; 22; 4: 785-801. 10.1111/hex.12888. 31012259. 6737756</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Groot B, Haveman A, Abma T. Relational, ethically sound co-production in mental health care research: Epistemic injustice and the need for an ethics of care. Critical Public Health. 2020. 10.1080/09581596.2020.1770694</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanson B, Mitchell DP. Involving mental health service users in the classroom: A course of preparation. Nurse Education in Practice. 2001. 10.1054/nepr.2001.0026</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Happell B, Byrne L, McAllister M, Lampshire D, Roper C, Gaskin CJ, Martin G, Wynaden D, McKenna B, Lakeman R, Platania-Phung C, Hamer H. Consumer involvement in the tertiary-level education of mental health professionals: A systematic review. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing. 2014; 23; 1: 3-16. 10.1111/inm.12021. 23586597</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hemmings C. Telling feminist stories. Feminist Theory. 2005; 6; 2: 115-139. 10.1177/1464700105053690</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Higgins A, Maguire G, Watts M, Creaner M, McCann E, Rani S, Alexander J. Service user involvement in mental health practitioner education in Ireland. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. 2011. 10.1111/j.1365-2850.2011.01698.x. 21749558</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones, N. & Brown, R. L. (2013). The Absence of Psychiatric C/S/X Perspectives in Academic Discourse: Consequences and Implications. Disability Studies Quarterly, 33(1). https://dsq-sds.org/article/view/3433/3198</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kalathil J, Jones N. Unsettling disciplines: Madness, identity, research, knowledge. Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology. 2016; 23; 3/4: 183-188. 10.1353/ppp.2016.0016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kemp PWeinstein J. The creative involvement of service users in the classroom. mental health, service user involvement and recovery. 2010; Jessica Kingsley Publishers</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kenny J, Asquith I, Guss R, Field E, Slade L, Bone A, Oliver K, Jones M, Ryan C, Brooks M, Norris C. Facilitating an evolving service user involvement group for people with dementia: What can we learn?. Journal of Mental Health Training, Education and Practice,. 2016. 10.1108/JMHTEP-09-2015-0046</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirkegaard S, Andersen D. Co-production in community mental health services: Blurred boundaries or a game of pretend?. Sociology of Health and Illness. 2018; 40; 5: 828-842. 10.1111/1467-9566.12722. 29479721</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirkness VJ, Barnhardt R. First Nations and higher education: The Four R's – respect, relevance, reciprocity, responsibility. Journal of American Indian Education. 1991; 30: 1-15</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lea L, Holttum S, Cooke A, Riley L. Aims for service user involvement in mental health training: staying human. Journal of Mental Health Training, Education and Practice. 2016. 10.1108/JMHTEP-01-2016-0008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> LeFrançois B, Menzies R, Reaume G. Mad matters: A critical reader in canadian mad studies. 2013; Canadian Scholars' Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maccallum EJ. Othering and psychiatric nursing. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. 2002; 9; 1: 87-94. 1:STN:280:DC%2BD387msFSnsw%3D%3D. 10.1046/j.1351-0126.2001.00449.x. 11896861</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Madden M, Speed E. Beware zombies and unicorns: Toward critical patient and public involvement in health research in a neoliberal context. Frontiers in Sociology. 2017. 10.3389/fsoc.2017.00007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maher B, Bell L, Rivers-Downing N, Jenkins C. How a service-user educator can provide insight into the recovery experience. Mental Health Practice. 2017. 10.7748/mhp.2017.e1162</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Manning JC, Latif A, Carter T, Cooper J, Horsley A, Armstrong M, Wharrad H. "Our care through our eyes": A mixed-methods, evaluative study of a service-user, co-produced education programme to improve inpatient care of children and young people admitted following self-harm. British Medical Journal Open. 2015. 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009680</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Manning JC, Carter T, Latif A, Horsley A, Cooper J, Armstrong M, Crew J, Wood D, Callaghan P, Wharrad H. "Our Care through Our Eyes". Impact of a co-produced digital educational programme on nurses' knowledge, confidence and attitudes in providing care for children and young people who have self-harmed: A mixed-methods study in the UK. BMJ Open. 2017. 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014750. 28473515. 5623397</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Masters H, Forrest S. How did I do? An analysis of service user feedback on mental health student nurses' practice in acute inpatient mental health placements. Journal of Mental Health Training, Education and Practice,. 2010. 10.5042/jmhtep.2010.0215</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Masters H, Forrest S, Harley A, Hunter M, Brown N, Risk I. Involving mental health service users and carers in curriculum development: Moving beyond "classroom" involvement. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. 2002. 10.1046/j.1365-2850.2002.00493.x. 12060375</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCusker P, MacIntyre G, Stewart A, Jackson J. Evaluating the effectiveness of service user and carer involvement in post qualifying mental health social work education in Scotland: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Mental Health Training, Education and Practice,. 2012. 10.1108/17556221211269956</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McIntosh GL. Exploration of the perceived impact of carer involvement in mental health nurse education: Values, attitudes and making a difference. Nurse Education in Practice. 2018; 29: 172-178. 10.1016/j.nepr.2018.01.009. 29414111</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Medina J. The epistemology of resistance: Gender and racial oppression, epistemic injustice, and the social imagination. 2013; Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199929023.001.0001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meeks LM. Global commitments to disability inclusion in health professions. The Lancet. 2020; 395: 852-853. 10.1080/09687599.2019.1647149</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meeks LM, Moreland C. How should we build disability-inclusive medical school admissions?. AMA Journal of Ethics. 2021; 23; 12: 987-994. 10.1001/amajethics.2021.987</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ng SL, Kinsella EA, Friesen F, Hodges B. Reclaiming a theoretical orientation to reflection in medical education research: A critical narrative review. Medical Education. 2015; 49; 5: 461-475. 10.1111/medu.12680. 25924122</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Reilly CL, Bell JS, Chen TF. Consumer-led mental health education for pharmacy students. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. 2010. 10.5688/aj7409167. 21301601. 2996757</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Obi-Udeaja J, Crosby K, Ryan G. Involving service users in teaching healthcare professionals about physical restraint. Mental Health Practice. 2017. 10.7748/mhp.2017.e1238</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paton M, Naidu T, Wyatt TR, Oni O, Lorello GR, Najeeb U, Feilchenfeld Z, Waterman SJ, Whitehead CR, Kuper A. Dismantling the master's house: New ways of knowing for equity and social justice in health professions education. Advances in Health Sciences Education. 2020; 25; 5: 1107-1126. 10.1007/s10459-020-10006-x. 33136279. 7605342</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paton M, Kuper A, Paradis E, Feilchenfeld Z, Whitehead CR. Tackling the void: The importance of addressing absences in the field of health professions education research. Advances in Health Sciences Education. 2020; 26; 1: 5-18. 10.1007/s10459-020-09966-x. 32144528</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paulson RI. Professional training for consumers and family members: One road to empowerment. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal. 1991. 10.1037/h0099430</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poole J. Behind the rhetoric: Mental health recovery in Ontario. 2011; Fernwood Publishing</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prytherch H, Lea L, Richardson M. Mentoring trainee psychologists: learning from lived experience. Journal of Mental Health Training, Education and Practice,. 2018. 10.1108/JMHTEP-08-2017-0050</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Race D, Boxall K, Carson I. Towards a dialogue for practice: Reconciling social role valorization and the social model of disability. Disability and Society. 2005; 20; 5: 507-521. 10.1080/09687590500156196</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reaume G. Lunatic to patient to person: Nomenclature of psychiatric history and the influence of patients' activism in North America. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. 2002; 25: 405-426. 10.1016/S0160-2527(02)00130-9. 12613052</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reid J, Poole J. Mad students in the social work classroom? Notes from the beginnings of an inquiry. Journal of Progressive Human Services. 2013. 10.1080/10428232.2013.835185</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Renedo A, Marston C. Developing patient-centred care: An ethnographic study of patient perceptions and influence on quality improvement. BMC Health Services Research. 2015. 10.1186/s12913-015-0770-y. 25903663. 4407290</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Repper J, Breeze J. User and carer involvement in the training and education of health professionals: A review of the literature. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2007; 44; 3: 511-519. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.05.013. 16842793</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts S, Collier R, Shaw B, Cook JStickley T, Basset T. Making waves in nurse education: The PINE project. Teaching mental health. 2007; John Wiley & Sons</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roper C, Happell B. Reflection without shame – reflection without blame: Towards a more collaborative understanding between mental health consumers and nurses. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. 2007. 10.1111/j.1365-2850.2007.01047.x. 17244010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rose D. Service user/survivor-led research in mental health: Epistemological possibilities. Disability and Society. 2017; 32; 6: 773-789. 10.1080/09687599.2017.1320270</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rose D, Kalathil J. Power, privilege and knowledge: The untenable promise of co-production in mental "health". Frontiers in Sociology. 2019. 10.3389/fsoc.2019.00057. 33869380. 8022626</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rouse J, Torney LK. Service user and carer involvement in pre-registration student selection. Nursing Standard. 2014; 28; 50: 37-44. 10.7748/ns.28.50.37.e7989. 25116562</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowland P, Anderson M, Kumagai AK, McMillan S. Patient involvement in health professionals' education: A meta-narrative review. Advances in Health Sciences Education. 2018; 24: 595-617. 10.1007/s10459-018-9857-7. 30306292</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowland P, MacKinnon KR, McNaughton N. Patient involvement in medical education: To what problem is engagement the solution?. Medical Education. 2021; 55; 1: 37-44. 10.1111/medu.14200. 32350875</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rush B. Mental health service user involvement in nurse education: A catalyst for transformative learning. Journal of Mental Health. 2008. 10.1080/09638230802053383</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rush B, Barker JH. Involving mental health service users in nurse education through enquiry-based learning. Nurse Education in Practice. 2006. 10.1016/j.nepr.2006.02.002. 19040886</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Russo J. Psychiatrization, assertions of epistemic justice, and the question of agency. Frontiers in Sociology. 2023; 8: 1092298. 10.3389/fsoc.2023.1092298. 36844880. 9947832</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sapouna L. Service-user narratives in social work education; Co-production or co-option?. Social Work Education. 2020; 40; 4: 505-521. 10.1080/02615479.2020.1730316</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schneebeli C, O'Brien A, Lampshire D, Hamer HP. Service user involvement in undergraduate mental health nursing in New Zealand. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing. 2010. 10.1111/j.1447-0349.2009.00642.x. 20074201</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sharma M. "Can the patient speak?": Postcolonialism and patient involvement in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education. Medical Education. 2018; 52; 5: 471-479. 10.1111/medu.13501. 29349892</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shenoy S. Staff perceptions of a play performed by service users. Mental Health Practice. 2011. 10.7748/mhp2011.07.14.10.30.c8578</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simons L, Tee S, Lathlean J, Burgess A, Herbert L, Gibson C. A socially inclusive approach to user participation in higher education. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2007. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04216.x. 17474913</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simpson A. Involving service users and carers in the education of mental health nurses. Mental Health Practice. 2006. 10.7748/mhp2006.12.10.4.20.c7864</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slay J, Stephens L. Co-production in mental health: A literature review. 2013: London; New Economics Foundation</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Soklaridis S, de Bie A, Cooper RB, McCullough K, McGovern B, Beder M, Bellisimo G, Gordon T, Berkhout S, Fefergrad M, Johnson A, Kalocsai C, Kidd S, McNaughton N, Ringsted C, Wiljer D, Agrawal S. Co-producing psychiatric education with service user educators: A collective autobiographical case study of the meaning, Ethics, and importance of payment. Academic Psychiatry. 2020; 44; 2: 159-167. 10.1007/s40596-019-01160-5. 31873923</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Soklaridis S, Cooper R, de Bie A. "Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils:" Insights from psychiatric service user engagement. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions. 2021; 41; 4: 263-267. 10.1097/CEH.0000000000000390. 34799515</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sowers W, Marin R. A community engaged curriculum for public service psychiatry fellowship training. Community Mental Health Journal. 2014. 10.1007/s10597-012-9587-x. 23338834</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Speers J, Lathlean J. Service user involvement in giving mental health students feedback on placement: A participatory action research study. Nurse Education Today. 2015. 10.1016/j.nedt.2015.07.004. 26216061</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Speers J. Service user involvement in the assessment of a practice competency in mental health nursing: Stakeholders' views and recommendations. Nurse Education in Practice. 2008. 10.1016/j.nepr.2007.04.002. 18291328</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stacey G, Pearson M. Exploring the influence of feedback given by people with lived experience of mental distress on learning for preregistration mental health students. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. 2018. 10.1111/jpm.12465. 29782073</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stacey G, Oxley R, Aubeeluck A. Combining lived experience with the facilitation of enquiry-based learning: A "trigger" for transformative learning. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. 2015. 10.1111/jpm.12228. 26111919</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stergiopoulos E, Fernando O, Martimianakis MA. "Being on both sides": Canadian medical students' experiences with disability, the hidden curriculum, and professional identity construction. Academic Medicine. 2018; 93; 10: 1550-1559. 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002300. 29794527</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stickley T, Stacey G, Pollock K, Smith A, Betinis J, Fairbank S. The practice assessment of student nurses by people who use mental health services. Nurse Education Today. 2010. 10.1016/j.nedt.2009.05.019. 20541296</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stomski NJ, Morrison P. Participation in mental healthcare: A qualitative meta-synthesis. International Journal of Mental Health Systems. 2017. 10.1186/s13033-017-0174-y. 29151851. 5678577</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Terry J. Service user involvement in pre-registration mental health nurse education classroom settings: A review of the literature. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. 2012. 10.1111/j.1365-2850.2011.01858.x. 22296494</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Terry J, Raithby M, Cutter J, Murphy F. A menu for learning: A World Café approach for user involvement and inter-professional learning on mental health. Social Work Education. 2015. 10.1080/02615479.2015.1031651</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tew J, Holley T, Caplen P. Dialogue and challenge: Involving service users and carers in small group learning with social work and nursing students. Social Work Education. 2012. 10.1080/02615479.2011.557429</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thornicroft G. Shunned: Discrimination against People with Mental Illness. 2003; Oxford University Press. 10.1093/med/9780198570981.001.0001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Towle A, Bainbridge L, Godolphin W, Katz A, Kline C, Lown B, Madularu I, Solomon P, Thistlethwaite J. Active patient involvement in the education of health professionals. Medical Education. 2010; 44; 1: 64-74. 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03530.x. 20078757</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Townend M, Tew J, Grant A, Repper J. Involvement of service users in education and training: A review of the literature and exploration of the implications for the education and training of psychological therapists. Journal of Mental Health. 2008. 10.1080/09638230701529715</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tseris EFreebody K, Goodwin S, Proctor H. When "participation" is not enough: Social justice practices in mental health and psychiatric hegemony. higher education, pedagogy and social justice: Politics and practice. 2019; Palgrave Macmillan</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Unwin PF, Rooney JM, Osborne N, Cole C. Are perceptions of disability changed by involving service users and carers in qualifying health and social work training?. Disability and Society. 2017. 10.1080/09687599.2017.1322498</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vinson AH. "Constrained collaboration": Patient empowerment discourse as resource for countervailing power. Sociology of Health and Illness. 2016; 38; 8: 1364-1378. 10.1111/1467-9566.12480. 27569852</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Voronka, J. & Costa, L. (2019). Special theme issue VI: Disordering social inclusion: Ethics, critiques, collaborations, futurities. Journal of Ethics in Mental Health. Retrieved from https://jemh.ca/issues/v9/theme6.html</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Voronka J, Grant J. Service user storytelling in social work education: Goals, constraints, strategies, and risks. Social Work Education. 2021. 10.1080/02615479.2021.1908251</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walsh S. Learning from stories of mental distress in occupational therapy education. Journal of Mental Health Training, Education and Practice,. 2016. 10.1108/JMHTEP-02-2016-0010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wood J, Wilson-Barnett J. The influence of user involvement on the learning of mental health nursing students. Journal of Research in Nursing. 1999. 10.1177/136140969900400403</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zaidi Z, Partman IM, Whitehead CR, Kuper A, Wyatt TR. Contending with our racial Past in medical education: A Foucauldian perspective. Teaching and Learning in Medicine. 2021; 33; 4: 453-462. 10.1080/10401334.2021.1945929. 34279159</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0175982043-30"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> We acknowledge that all words and phrases will resonate more strongly for some than for others and that all terms have their own histories and politics. We use the term <emph>service user</emph> to denote someone who has encountered mental health services because we/they have experienced or are in recovery from significant mental health challenges, or because mental health services were imposed on us/them.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Csilla Kalocsai; Sacha Agrawal; Lee de Bie; Michaela Beder; Gail Bellissimo; Suze Berkhout; Andrew Johnson; Nancy McNaughton; Terri Rodak; Kim McCullough and Sophie Soklaridis</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib126" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib106" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib112" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib117" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib135" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib130" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib127" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib131" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib132" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib136" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib109" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib116" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib118" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib111" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib115" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib138" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib121" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib114" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib113" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib125" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib122" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib119" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib123" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib129" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib128" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib139" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib108" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl95" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl96" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl97" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl98" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl99" bibid="bib120" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl100" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref138"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl101" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref142"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl102" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl103" bibid="bib107" firstref="ref157"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl104" bibid="bib134" firstref="ref159"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl105" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref162"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl106" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref163"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl107" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref166"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl108" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref167"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl109" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref168"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl110" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref179"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl111" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref183"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl112" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref185"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl113" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref186"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl114" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref187"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl115" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref188"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl116" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref189"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl117" bibid="bib124" firstref="ref196"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl118" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref197"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl119" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref199"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl120" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref200"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl121" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref203"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl122" bibid="bib140" firstref="ref205"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl123" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref206"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl124" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref207"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl125" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref209"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl126" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref215"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl127" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref218"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl128" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref223"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl129" bibid="bib110" firstref="ref227"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl130" bibid="bib133" firstref="ref228"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl131" bibid="bib137" firstref="ref230"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl132" bibid="bib268" firstref="ref237"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl133" bibid="bib430" firstref="ref238"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl134" bibid="bib199" firstref="ref239"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl135" bibid="bib506" firstref="ref240"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl136" bibid="bib871" firstref="ref241"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl137" bibid="bib610" firstref="ref243"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1416353
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Power to the People? A Co-Produced Critical Review of Service User Involvement in Mental Health Professions Education
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Csilla+Kalocsai%22">Csilla Kalocsai</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sacha+Agrawal%22">Sacha Agrawal</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lee+de+Bie%22">Lee de Bie</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Michaela+Beder%22">Michaela Beder</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gail+Bellissimo%22">Gail Bellissimo</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Suze+Berkhout%22">Suze Berkhout</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Andrew+Johnson%22">Andrew Johnson</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Nancy+McNaughton%22">Nancy McNaughton</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Terri+Rodak%22">Terri Rodak</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kim+McCullough%22">Kim McCullough</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sophie+Soklaridis%22">Sophie Soklaridis</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Advances+in+Health+Sciences+Education%22"><i>Advances in Health Sciences Education</i></searchLink>. 2024 29(1):273-300.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 28
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mental+Health%22">Mental Health</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Counselor+Training%22">Counselor Training</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Allied+Health+Occupations+Education%22">Allied Health Occupations Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Lay+People%22">Lay People</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Power+Structure%22">Power Structure</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Neoliberalism%22">Neoliberalism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Epistemology%22">Epistemology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Justice%22">Social Justice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mental+Health+Programs%22">Mental Health Programs</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10459-023-10240-z
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1382-4996<br />1573-1677
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Meaningful service user involvement in health professions education requires integrating knowledge held by "lay" people affected by health challenges into professional theories and practices. Involving service users redefines whose knowledge "counts" and implies a shift in power. Such a shift is especially significant in the mental health field, where power imbalances between health professionals and service users are magnified. However, reviews of the literature on service user involvement in mental health professional education do little to explore how power manifests in this work. Meanwhile critical and Mad studies scholars have highlighted that without real shifts in power, inclusion practices can lead to harmful consequences. We conducted a critical review to explore how power is addressed in the literature that describes service user involvement in mental health professions education. Our team used a co-produced approach and critical theories to identify how power implicitly and explicitly operates in this work to unearth the inequities and power structures that service user involvement may inadvertently perpetuate. We demonstrate that power permeates service user involvement in mental health professional education but is rarely made visible. We also argue that by missing the opportunity to locate power, the literature contributes to a series of epistemic injustices that reveal the contours of legitimate knowledge in mental health professions education and its neoliberal underpinnings. Ultimately, we call for a critical turn that foregrounds power relations to unlock the social justice-oriented transformative potential of service user involvement in mental health professions education and health professions education more broadly.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1416353
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1416353
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10459-023-10240-z
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 28
        StartPage: 273
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Mental Health
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Counselor Training
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Allied Health Occupations Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Lay People
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Power Structure
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Neoliberalism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Epistemology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Justice
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mental Health Programs
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Power to the People? A Co-Produced Critical Review of Service User Involvement in Mental Health Professions Education
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Csilla Kalocsai
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sacha Agrawal
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lee de Bie
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Michaela Beder
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gail Bellissimo
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Suze Berkhout
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Andrew Johnson
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Nancy McNaughton
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Terri Rodak
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kim McCullough
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sophie Soklaridis
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1382-4996
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1677
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 29
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Advances in Health Sciences Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1