In the context of mental health research, co-production involves people with lived expertise, those with professional or academic expertise, and people with both of these perspectives collaborating to design and actualize research initiatives. In the literature, two dominant perspectives on co-production emerge. The first is in support of co-production, pointing to the transformative value of co-production for those involved, the quality of services developed through this process, as well as to broader system-level impacts (e.g. influencing changes in health system decision making, care practices, government policies, etc.). The second stance expresses scepticism about the capacity of co-production to engender genuine collaboration given the deeply ingrained power imbalances in the systems in which we operate. While some scholars have explored the intersections of these two perspectives, this body of literature remains limited. This paper contributes to the literature base by exploring the nuances of co-production in health research. Using our mental health participatory action research project as a case example, we explore the nuances of co-production through four key values that we embraced: By sharing these values and associated principles and practices, we invite readers to consider the complexities of co-production and explore how our experiences may inform their practice of co-production. Despite the inherent complexity of co-production, we contend that pursuing authentic and equitable collaborations is integral to shaping a more just and inclusive future in mental health research and the mental health system at large. In the context of mental health research, co-production is a process where people with lived experiences, those with academic or professional experience, and people with both of these perspectives collaborate to design and actualize research initiatives. In the literature, there are two main opinions about co-production. The first opinion is that co-production is beneficial for those involved, improves the quality of services, and can also have impacts at higher system levels (e.g. influencing changes in health system decision making, care practices, government policies, etc.). The second opinion is doubtful that co-production has the ability to foster authentic collaboration because of the differences in power between academic and health systems. Even though some scholars have looked at both opinions, there is not a lot of research on this. This paper contributes to the literature base exploring the nuances of co-production in health research. Using our mental health participatory action research project as a case example, we explore the nuances of co-production through four key values that we embraced: By sharing these values and associated principles and practices, we invite readers to consider the complexities of co-production and explore how our process may inform their engagement with co-production. We argue that pursuing authentic collaborations is key to shaping a more just and inclusive future in mental health research and the mental health system at large.

中文翻译：

---

平衡之举：探讨心理健康研究中合作生产的细微差别

在心理健康研究的背景下，联合生产涉及具有生活专业知识的人、具有专业或学术专业知识的人以及具有这两种观点的人合作设计和实施研究计划。在文献中，出现了关于联合制作的两种主要观点。第一个是支持联合制作，指出联合制作对相关人员的变革价值、通过这一过程开发的服务质量以及更广泛的系统层面的影响（例如影响卫生系统决策的变化） 、护理实践、政府政策等）。鉴于我们运作的系统中根深蒂固的权力不平衡，第二种立场表达了对联合制作能否产生真正合作的怀疑。尽管一些学者探讨了这两种观点的交叉点，但文献仍然有限。本文通过探讨健康研究中合作生产的细微差别，为文献库做出了贡献。以我们的心理健康参与行动研究项目为例，我们通过我们所拥护的四个关键价值观来探讨共同制作的细微差别：通过分享这些价值观以及相关的原则和实践，我们邀请读者考虑共同制作的复杂性并探索我们的经验如何指导他们的联合制作实践。尽管联合制作具有固有的复杂性，但我们认为，追求真实和公平的合作对于在心理健康研究和整个心理健康系统中塑造一个更加公正和包容的未来至关重要。在心理健康研究的背景下，合作生产是一个过程，其中有生活经验的人、有学术或专业经验的人以及具有这两种观点的人合作设计和实施研究计划。在文献中，关于合拍片主要有两种观点。第一种观点是，共同生产对参与者有利，提高了服务质量，并且还可以对更高系统级别产生影响（例如影响卫生系统决策、护理实践、政府政策等的变化）。第二种观点对联合制作是否有能力促进真正的合作表示怀疑，因为学术和卫生系统之间的权力存在差异。尽管一些学者对这两种观点都进行了研究，但对此的研究并不多。本文有助于探索健康研究中合作生产的细微差别的文献库。以我们的心理健康参与行动研究项目为例，我们通过我们所拥护的四个关键价值观来探讨共同制作的细微差别：通过分享这些价值观以及相关的原则和实践，我们邀请读者考虑共同制作的复杂性并探索我们的流程如何影响他们参与联合制作。