Relational, ethically sound co-production in mental health care research: epistemic injustice and the need for an ethics of care

Figures & data

Table 1. Data of the study and period of data collection

Process of reflection during and after the ‘Good-Care-in-Crisis’-study
Period	Data
During process (2016–2017)	Diary notes of individual research team members Emails between research team members Notes of phone calls in which reflections about challenges were discussed (taken by the first author) Notes of conversations about the study between care professionals and the authors Achieved emails of conversations about the study with the directors of the mental health care institutions with the authors Transcribed audios of a group session about critical incidents in the research team
After process (2018)	Transcribed audios of interviews (60–90 minutes) within the research team members by the first author (n = 5) Dialogue sessions with the authors about the process (n = 3)

Table 2. Co-production in all phases of ‘Good-Care-in-Crisis’-study

Process of responsive evaluation in the ‘Good-Care-in-Crisis’-study
Phase	Activities	Co-production
I: Creating social conditions	Informal conversations with key figures	All conversations in pairs (a co-researchers with lived experiences and an academic title)
II: Exploration	Data gathering (interviews with service users and professionals) and a focus group with care givers	All together (co-research team), we … … created a recruitment-plan of service users … conducted the interviews and focus group … analyzed the data … discussed the findings for report
III: Validation	Focus groups with service users and professionals about the findings in homogenous groups
IV: Writing report	Writing the findings in a report	Co-researchers with an academic affiliation were in the lead in reporting and writing academic articles
V: Dialogue and mutual understanding	Dialogue session with heterogeneous groups	All together (co-research team), we organized and facilitated the session