Power to the people? A co-produced critical review of service user involvement in mental health professions education.

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.

The effectiveness of substance use interventions for homeless and vulnerably housed persons: A systematic review of systematic reviews on supervised consumption facilities, managed alcohol programs, and pharmacological agents for opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Substance use is disproportionately high among people who are homeless or vulnerably housed. We performed a systematic overview of reviews examining the effects of selected harm reduction and pharmacological interventions on the health and social well-being of people who use substances, with a focus on homeless populations. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Joanna Briggs Institute EBP, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and DARE for systematic reviews from inception to August 2019. We conducted a grey literature search and hand searched reference lists. We selected reviews that synthesized evidence on supervised consumption facilities, managed alcohol programs and pharmacological interventions for opioid use disorders. We abstracted data specific to homeless or vulnerably housed populations. We assessed certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Our search identified 483 citations and 30 systematic reviews met all inclusion criteria, capturing the results from 442 primary studies. This included three reviews on supervised consumption facilities, 24 on pharmacological interventions, and three on managed alcohol programs. Supervised consumption facilities decreased lethal overdoses and other high risk behaviours without any significant harm, and improved access to care. Pharmaceutical interventions reduced mortality, morbidity, and substance use, but the impact on retention in treatment, mental illness and access to care was variable. Managed alcohol programs reduced or stabilized alcohol consumption. Few studies on managed alcohol programs reported deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Substance use is a common chronic condition impacting homeless populations. Supervised consumption facilities reduce overdose and improve access to care, while pharmacological interventions may play a role in reducing harms and addressing other morbidity. High quality evidence on managed alcohol programs is limited.

Co-producing Psychiatric Education with Service User Educators: a Collective Autobiographical Case Study of the Meaning, Ethics, and Importance of Payment.

OBJECTIVE: Co-production involves service providers and service users collaborating to design and deliver services together and is gaining attention as a means to improve provision of care. Aiming to extend this model to an educational context, the authors assembled a diverse group to develop co-produced education for psychiatry residents and medical students at the University of Toronto over several years. The authors describe the dynamics involved in co-producing psychiatric education as experienced in their work. METHODS: A collaborative autobiographical case study approach provides a snapshot of the collective experiences of working to write a manuscript about paying service users for their contributions to co-produced education. Data were collected from two in-person meetings, personal communications, emails, and online comments to capture the fullest possible range of perspectives from the group about payment. RESULTS: The juxtaposition of the vision for an inclusive process against the budgetary constraints that the authors faced led them to reflect deeply on the many meanings of paying service user educators for their contributions to academic initiatives. These reflections revealed that payment had implications at personal, organizational, and social levels. CONCLUSION: Paying mental health service user educators for their contributions is an ethical imperative for the authors. However, unless payment is accompanied by other forms of demonstrating respect, it aligns with organizational structures and practices, and it is connected to a larger goal of achieving social justice, the role of service users as legitimate knowers and educators and ultimately their impact on learners will be limited.