"Beyond laughter": a systematic review to understand how interventions utilise comedy for individuals experiencing mental health problems.

Introduction: There is evidence for the impact of comedy and humour for mental health and wellbeing. Existing systematic reviews have concluded laughter has a positive impact on wellbeing, however other potential benefits of comedy interventions have remained under explored. The aim of the current study was to synthesise current evidence for comedy/humour interventions and evaluate mechanisms through which comedy interventions may impact upon the recovery of those experiencing psychological distress, using the Connectedness, Hope, Identity, Meaning and Purpose and Empowerment (CHIME) framework. Methods: Five electronic databases were searched for studies exploring the impact of interventions using comedy on wellbeing and mental health recovery, from earliest record until January 2023. Grey literature was obtained via contacting experts in comedy interventions for mental health and supplemented by an internet search for comedy interventions. To be eligible for inclusion, studies had to include primary data, published in English or German, and explore a population of adults, with self-reported distress or a self-reported/diagnosed mental health condition. Studies included only explored interventions which utilised comedy as the main intervention and aimed to induce 'simulated' laughter, in response to a stimulus. 17 studies were included in the review. Results: Studies were found to have positive impact on mental health symptoms and several mechanisms of the CHIME framework for recovery, including connectedness, hope, identity and empowerment. Potential theorised mechanisms for change included confidence in new skills, promotion of social skills, opportunities for social interaction, laughter, vulnerability, and cognitive flexibility. The current review found that comedy/humour interventions are beneficial for mental health recovery and wellbeing and found preliminary evidence for a range of mechanisms through which comedy may have positive impact. Discussion: Further research should focus on qualitative exploration of the mechanisms by which comedy interventions may have impact on wellbeing and mental health recovery for specific populations and within different settings. It is concluded that there is a need for transdisciplinary collaboration in research on comedy interventions, which brings together the expertise of comedians delivering/developing interventions, those with lived experience of mental health issues and researchers from both health sciences and humanities disciplines.

Corrigendum: "Beyond laughter": a systematic review to understand how interventions utilise comedy for individuals experiencing mental health problems.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1161703.].

Co-producing principles to guide health research: an illustrative case study from an eating disorder research clinic.

BACKGROUND: There is significant value in co-produced health research, however power-imbalances within research teams can pose a barrier to people with lived experience of an illness determining the direction of research in that area. This is especially true in eating disorder research, where the inclusion of co-production approaches lags other research areas. Appealing to principles or values can serve to ground collaborative working. Despite this, there has not been any prior attempt to co-produce principles to guide the work of a research group and serve as a basis for developing future projects. METHODS: The aim of this piece of work was to co-produce a set of principles to guide the conduct of research within our lived experience led research clinic, and to offer an illustrative case for the value of this as a novel co-production methodology. A lived experience panel were recruited to our eating disorder research group. Through an iterative series of workshops with the members of our research clinic (composed of a lived experience panel, clinicians, and researchers) we developed a set of principles which we agreed were important in ensuring both the direction of our research, and the way in which we wanted to work together. RESULTS: Six key principles were developed using this process. They were that research should aim to be: 1) real world-offering a clear and concrete benefit to people with eating disorders, 2) tailored-suitable for marginalised groups and people with atypical diagnoses, 3) hopeful-ensuring that hope for recovery was centred in treatment, 4) experiential-privileging the 'voice' of people with eating disorders, 5) broad-encompassing non-standard therapeutic treatments and 6) democratic-co-produced by people with lived experience of eating disorders. CONCLUSIONS: We reflect on some of the positives as well as limitations of the process, highlighting the importance of adequate funding for longer-term co-production approaches to be taken, and issues around ensuring representation of minority groups. We hope that other health research groups will see the value in co-producing principles to guide research in their own fields, and will adapt, develop, and refine this novel methodology.

It important that when researchers are trying to understand illnesses they do this together with people who have experienced them. This can be difficult, because researchers often take over­even if everyone is meant to be working as a team. We are a group of people trying to understand eating disorders and help people who have them get better. In our group there are some people that have experienced an eating disorder, health workers and researchers.We thought it might be helpful if we could start by working out what things were most important to us as a group, and then try to stick by them. We talked a lot together to come up with a list of principles.The six principles we thought were the most important were that research should make a difference to people's lives, see people as individuals, be hopeful, make sure that people have a voice, look at things that aren't traditional therapies, and always work together as equals.There are some issues with what we did; we found it hard to get a good mix of people in our group, and we were lucky in having enough money to pay people to do what we wanted to do, which is not always true. Despite this, we still hope that other teams might look at what we have done, and see if they could build on it, or change it, so it would work for them.