ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2022
Legitimizing user knowledge in mental health services: Epistemic (in)justice and barriers to knowledge integration.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- What Do We Know About Sharing Power in Co-Production in Mental Health Research? A Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Pooled it
- Hospital social work in acquired brain injury care: patients' and kin' experiences and perspectives on psychosocial support.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2026Article
- "It's Shaking Your Entire Construction as a Human Being": A Qualitative Analysis on Epistemic Injustice and Medical Gaslighting Consequences in Patients Living with Chronic Pain.The Journal of medicine and philosophy · 2026Article
- Tensions as productive forces in coproduced mental health research: an explorative qualitative study.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Partnering with people with lived experience in eating disorder research: conceptual and practical considerations.Journal of eating disorders · 2026Article
- Enhancing the Therapeutic Relationship Between Mental Health Case Managers and Individuals With Serious Mental Health Conditions: A Participatory Action Research Study in Community-Based Services.International journal of mental health nursing · 2026Article
- Patients' Perspectives on Antidepressant Discontinuation and the Pharmacists' Role.Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology · 2026Article
- Scoping Review of Co-Design in Mental Health Research: Essential Elements and Recommendations.OTJR : occupation, participation and health · 2026Article
- The complexity of inequity: rethinking global health through lived experience, power, and structural vulnerability.International journal for equity in health · 2026Article
- Barriers and opportunities for participation in health policy decision-making by civil society groups organized for cancer in Chile: a qualitative study.Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
- Turning to Service Users for the Understanding of Current and Future Mental Health Services in the Development Process of Research and Practice: A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Scaling injustice: epistemic harm in DID and what clinical records will teach AI.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Examining impact of service user involvement: a follow-up study of user-led mental health service evaluation.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Reparations not remuneration: Redefining the future of lived experience.PLOS mental health · 2025Article
- Mental health service user organizations in times of crises: adaptions, challenges and opportunities experienced by local associations during COVID-19.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2024Article
- Towards evidence-based practice 2.0: leveraging artificial intelligence in healthcare.Frontiers in health services · 2024Review
- "Work WITH us": a Delphi study about improving eating disorder treatment for autistic women with anorexia nervosa.Journal of eating disorders · 2023Article
- Epistemic injustice and mental health research: A pragmatic approach to working with lived experience expertise.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- The truth project paper one-how did victims and survivors experience participation? Addressing epistemic relational inequality in the field of child sexual abuse.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- "Believe me, only I know how I feel." An autoethnographic account of experiences of epistemic injustice in mental health care.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Including the voices and knowledge of service users is essential for developing recovery-oriented and evidence-based mental health services. Recent studies have however, suggested that challenges remain to the legitimization of user knowledge in practice. To further explore such challenges, a co-production study was conducted by a team of researchers and representatives from user organizations in Sweden. The aim of the study was to explore the barriers and facilitators to the legitimacy of user knowledge, as a central factor in sustainably implementing user influence in mental health practice. A series of workshops, with representatives of mental health services and user organizations were conducted by the research team to explore these issues. The analysis built on the theoretical framework of epistemic injustice, and the underlying aspects, testimonial, hermeneutic and participation-based injustice, were utilized as a framework for a deductive analysis. Results suggest that this is a useful model for exploring the complex dynamics related to the legitimacy of user knowledge in mental health systems. The analysis suggests that the legitimacy of user knowledge is related to the representativeness of the knowledge base, the systematic formulation of this knowledge in applicable methods, access to resources and positions within the mental health system and participation in the process of integrating this knowledge-base in mental health contexts. Legitimizing user knowledge in practice additionally challenges mental health systems to support readiness for change in working environments and to address the power and role issues that these changes involve.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.