Gaining by Giving? Peer Research into Service User and Carer Perceptions of Inclusivity in Higher Education

Service users and carers (SUAC) have made significant contributions to professional training in social work courses in Higher Education (HE) over the past decade in the UK. Such participation has been championed by government, academics and SUAC groups from a range of theoretical and political perspectives. Most research into the effectiveness of SUAC involvement at HE has come from the perspectives of academics and very little SUAC-led research exists. This qualitative peer research was led by two members of the University of Worcester’s SUAC group. Findings were that SUAC perceived their involvement brought benefits to students, staff, the University and the local community. Significant personal benefits such as finding a new support network, increased self-development and greater confidence to manage their own care were identified in ways that suggested that the benefits that can flow from SUAC involvement at HE are perhaps more far-reaching than previously recognised. Barriers to inclusion were less than previously reported in the literature and the humanising effects of SUAC involvement are presented as a partial antidote to an increasingly marketised HE culture.

Involvement of the Electrophilic Isothiocyanate Sulforaphane in Arabidopsis Local Defense Responses

Plants defend themselves against microbial pathogens through a range of highly sophisticated and integrated molecular systems. Recognition of pathogen-secreted effector proteins often triggers the hypersensitive response (HR), a complex multicellular defense reaction where programmed cell death (PCD) of cells surrounding the primary site of infection is a prominent feature. Even though the HR was described almost a century ago, cell to cell factors acting at the local level generating the full defense reaction has remained obscure. In this study, we sought to identify diffusible molecules produced during the HR that could induce cell death in naïve tissue. We found that 4-methylsulfinylbutyl isothiocyanate (sulforaphane) is released by Arabidopsis thaliana leaf tissue undergoing HR, and that this compound induces cell death as well as prime defense in naïve tissue. Two different mutants impaired in the pathogen-induced accumulation of sulforaphane displayed attenuated PCD upon bacterial and oomycete effector recognition as well as decreased resistance to several isolates of the plant pathogen Hyaloperonospora arabidopsidis. Treatment with sulforaphane provided protection against a virulent H. arabidopsidis isolate. Glucosinolate breakdown products are recognized as antifeeding compounds towards insects and recently also as intracellular signaling and bacteriostatic molecules in Arabidopsis. The data presented herein indicate that these compounds also trigger local defense responses in Arabidopsis tissue.

Carers and Co-Production: Enabling Expertise through Experience?

Purpose To provide a brief overview of the literature to date which has focussed on co-production within mental healthcare in the UK, including service user and carer involvement and collaboration. Design The paper presents key outcomes from studies which have explicitly attempted to introduce co-produced care in addition to specific tools designed to encourage co-production within mental health services. The paper debates the cultural and ideological shift required for staff, service users and family members to undertake co-produced care and outlines challenges ahead with respect to service redesign and new roles in practice. Findings Informal carers (family and friends) are recognised as a fundamental resource for mental health service provision, as well as a rich source of expertise through experience, yet their views are rarely solicited by mental health professionals or taken into account during decision-making. This issue is considered alongside new policy recommendations which advocate the development of co-produced services and care. Research Limitations Despite the launch of a number of initiatives designed to build on peer experience and support, there has been a lack of attention on the differing dynamic which remains evident between healthcare professionals and people using mental health services. Co-production sheds a light on the blurring of roles, trust and shared endeavour (Slay and Stephens, 2013) but, despite an increase in peer recovery workers across England, there has been little research or service development designed to focus explicitly on this particular dynamic. Practical Implications Despite these challenges, coproduction in mental healthcare represents a real opportunity for the skills and experience of family members to be taken into account and could provide a mechanism to achieve the ‘triangle of care’ with input, recognition and respect given to all (service users, carers, professionals) whose lives are touched by mental distress. However, lack of attention in relation to carer perspectives, expertise and potential involvement could undermine the potential for coproduction to act as a vehicle to encourage person-centred care which accounts for social in addition to clinical factors. Social Implications The families of people with severe and enduring mental illness (SMI) assume a major responsibility for the provision of care and support to their relatives over extended time periods (Rose et al, 2004). Involving carers in discussions about care planning could help to provide a wider picture about the impact of mental health difficulties, beyond symptom reduction. The ‘co-production of care’ reflects a desire to work meaningfully and fully with service users and carers. However, to date, little work has been undertaken in order to coproduce services through the ‘triangle of care’ with carers bringing their own skills, resources and expertise. Originality/Value This paper debates the current involvement of carers across mental healthcare and debates whether co-production could be a vehicle to utilise carer expertise, enhance quality and satisfaction with mental healthcare. The critique of current work highlights the danger of increasing expectations on service providers to undertake work aligned to key initiatives (shared decision-making, person-centred care, co-production), that have common underpinning principles but, in the absence of practical guidance, could be addressed in isolation rather than as an integrated approach within a ‘triangle of care’.