Top 10 priorities for Sexual Violence and Abuse Research: indings of the James Lind Alliance Sexual Violence Priority Setting Partnership.

OBJECTIVES: To establish a James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) to identify research priorities relevant to the health and social care needs of adults with lived experience of recent and/or historical sexual violence/abuse. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (aged 18+ years) with lived experience of sexual violence/abuse (ie, 'survivors') were consulted for this PSP, alongside healthcare and social care professionals who support survivors across the public, voluntary, community, independent practice and social enterprise sectors. METHODS: In line with standard JLA PSP methodology, participants completed an initial online survey to propose research questions relevant to the health and social care needs of survivors. Research questions unanswered by current evidence were identified, and a second online survey was deployed to identify respondents' priorities from this list. Questions prioritised through the second survey were presented at a consensus meeting with key stakeholders to agree the top 10 research priorities using a modified nominal group technique approach. RESULTS: 223 participants (54% survivors) provided 484 suggested questions. Seventy-five unique questions unanswered by research were identified and subsequently ranked by 343 participants (60% survivors). A consensus meeting with 31 stakeholders (42% survivors) examined the top-ranking priorities from the second survey and agreed the top 10 research priorities. These included research into forms of support and recovery outcomes valued by survivors, how to best support people of colour/black, Asian and minority ethnic and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) survivors, improving access to high-quality psychological therapies, reducing public misconceptions/stigma, the impact of involvement in the criminal justice system on well-being, and how physical and mental health services can become more 'trauma informed'. CONCLUSIONS: These research priorities identify crucial gaps in the existing evidence to better support adult survivors of sexual violence and abuse. Researchers and funders should prioritise further work in these priority areas identified by survivors and the professionals who support them.

Strengthening Review and Publication of Participatory Mental Health Research to Promote Empowerment and Prevent Co-optation.

As reviewers, editors, and researchers with lived experience of mental health challenges, addiction, and/or psychosocial distress/disability, the authors have struggled to find an adequate way to address inappropriate or misleading use of the term "participatory methods" to describe research that involves people with lived experience in only a superficial or tokenistic manner. The authors of this article have found that, in their experience, editors or other reviewers often appear to give authors extensive leeway on claims of participatory methods that more accurately reflect tokenism or superficial involvement. The problem of co-optation is described, examples from the authors' experiences are given, the potential harms arising from co-optation are articulated, and a series of concrete actions that journal editors, reviewers, and authors can take to preserve the core intent of participatory approaches are offered. The authors conclude with a call to action: the mental health field must ensure that power imbalances that sustain epistemic injustice against people with lived experience are not worsened by poorly conducted or reported studies or by tokenistic participatory methods.

The practice of participatory action research: Complicity, power and prestige in dialogue with the 'racialised mad'.

Mental health service users in the UK have become increasingly involved in research over the last 2 decades partly as a consequence of research governance. Ethnic minority service users, however, point to power imbalances stemming from marginalisation and discrimination creating barriers to knowledge co-production (Kalathil, J. (2013). Hard to reach? Racialised groups and mental health service user involvement.). Heavily influenced by Freire's liberatory education, participatory action research (PAR) repoliticises participation where those most affected by injustice are central in both producing knowledge about injustice and implementing solutions. Ethnic minority people with lived experience of 'severe mental illness' ('the racialised mad') were appointed as coresearchers to work with academic researchers on a qualitative study exploring ethnic inequalities in 'severe mental illness'. Drawing on Foucault's notion of power as relational, we focus on three key aspects of productive power: (1) relational engagement and reciprocity, (2) positioning coresearchers as authentic researchers and (3) adopting an ethic of care, to explore complicity and resistance in reproducing hierarchies of knowledge and power when attempting to create and sustain a PAR process for collective analysis, action and solidarity. We utilise retrospective and recorded reflections over the course of the project. Finally, we discuss the ethical and methodological implications for contemporary sociological research into health and illness.