Co-producing research on psychosis: a scoping review on barriers, facilitators and outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Co-production is a collaborative approach to service user involvement in which users and researchers share power and responsibility in the research process. Although previous reviews have investigated co-production in mental health research, these do not typically focus on psychosis or severe mental health conditions. Meanwhile, people with psychosis may be under-represented in co-production efforts. This scoping review aims to explore the peer-reviewed literature to better understand the processes and terminology employed, as well as the barriers, facilitators, and outcomes of co-production in psychosis research.

METHODS

Three databases were searched (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO) using terms and headings related to psychosis and co-production. All titles, abstracts and full texts were independently double-screened. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Original research articles reporting on processes and methods of co-production involving adults with psychosis as well as barriers, facilitators, and/or outcomes of co-production were included. Data was extracted using a standardised template and synthesised narratively. Joanna Briggs Institute and the AGREE Reporting Checklist were used for quality assessment.

RESULTS

The search returned 1243 references. Fifteen studies were included: five qualitative, two cross-sectional, and eight descriptive studies. Most studies took place in the UK, and all reported user involvement in the research process; however, the amount and methods of involvement varied greatly. Although all studies were required to satisfy INVOLVE (2018) principles of co-production to be included, seven were missing several of the key features of co-production and often used different terms to describe their collaborative approaches. Commonly reported outcomes included improvements in mutual engagement as well as depth of understanding and exploration. Key barriers were power differentials between researchers and service users and stigma. Key facilitators were stakeholder buy-in and effective communication.

CONCLUSIONS

The methodology, terminology and quality of the studies varied considerably; meanwhile, over-representation of UK studies suggests there may be even more heterogeneity in the global literature not captured by our review. This study makes recommendations for encouraging co-production and improving the reporting of co-produced research, while also identifying several limitations that could be improved upon for a more comprehensive review of the literature.

Prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy with urine alkalinization: the TEATE study

Background

Contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) after coronary angiography and percutaneous interventions (PCI) impacts on hospitalization duration and mortality. Pre-procedural hydration is the sole strategy currently recommended for preventing CI-AKI. The role of sodium bicarbonate (SB) although attractive, since urine alkalinization suppresses the production of reactive oxygen species, is still controversial, and the optimal dosing to attain adequate urine alkalinization is still undefined.

Purpose

The PrevenTion of contrast-inducEd nephropathy with urine alkalinization (TEATE) study was a prospective 3-center 3-arm single-blind randomized controlled trial testing the hypothesis that adequate urine alkalinization is associated with CI-AKI prevention. Secondary endpoints were the efficacy of SB vs saline in achieving adequate urine alkalinization and reducing the incidence of CI-AKI compared with saline.

Methods

Patients candidate to coronary angiography and/or PCI with moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease [eGFR of 15 to 60 mL/min/1.73 m2, by the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study equation (MDRD)] were randomly assigned to saline hydration (control), oral SB or i.v. SB. The study protocol was registered. We evaluated urinary pH at the time of hospitalization, immediately before coronary angiography and 24–48 hours after angiography. According to urine pH immediately before the procedure, patients were divided in two groups above or below a pH cut-off of 6.

Results

We enrolled a total of 241 patients: 81 were randomly assigned to the control group, 82 to i.v. SB and 78 to oral SB. Patients achieving a urinary pH >6 before angiography had a lower incidence of CI-AKI (46%) than patients with urinary pH ≤6 (54%) [OR=0.48 (95% CI 0.25–0.9) p=0.023]. The number of patients with urine pH >6 was higher in both the i.v. (71%) and the oral SB (65%) groups compared to the hydration-only group (44%, p=0.004). We found however no difference in the incidence of CI-AKI in the 3 treatment arms (20% in hydration alone, 21% in oral SB group and 22% in iv SB group) (p=0.94). Subgroup analyses according to basal urine pH and eGFR ranges failed to identify statistically significant differences in the development of CI-AKI according to treatment allocation.

Conclusions

Urinary pH before the administration of contrast medium is an inverse correlate of CI-AKI incidence, and SB is superior to hydration alone in achieving urinary alkalinization. Since, however, SB did not reduce the incidence of CI-AKI, we conclude that urinary pH is a marker and not a mediator of CI-AKI.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: None.