Citation

Jones N, Byrne L, Carr S. Lancet Psychiatry 2020; ePub(ePub): ePub.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2020, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30374-6

PMID

32822563 PMCID

Abstract

In a Position Paper published in The Lancet Psychiatry, Carmen Moreno and colleagues1 recommended bolder language and framing with respect to the meaningful involvement of service users in mental health planning, policy, and research in the wake of COVID-19. It is always gratifying to hear enthusiasm for goals the user and survivor research movement has long fought for. We were similarly gratified to read an Editorial in The Lancet Psychiatry arguing for pressure from service users to more actively shift societal discourse.2 And yet, as welcome as these statements are, we worry that the primary problem we are all up against is not a paucity of articulated support for service-user involvement but rather the gap between rhetoric and reality.

Our collective experience suggests that both before, and now many months into, the COVID-19 pandemic, meaningful service-user involvement remains unevenly implemented in some places, and non-existent in others. In some regions, involvement could be reduced from pre-COVID-19 levels, whereas in others, attestations to the importance of inclusion might have long been unaccompanied by concrete action. The same sentiment—anger and frustration about decades of inaction—has also been at the forefront of the Extinction Rebellion, March for our Lives, and Black Lives Matter movements. At a specific point, one feels the need to say “enough talk”. And if there was ever a moment when we, as a field, might take deeper stock of where we really want to head, it is arguably now. Involvement efforts are too often accompanied by empty promises, insufficient funding or commitment, and superficial gestures (eg, membership on advisory boards), with no real power to set agendas, influence decision making, or bring about structural change

Language: en