Researchers decided to take a look at studies published in some of the most important psychiatry journals. They wanted to know two things: how many of these studies mentioned involving people with personal experiences of mental health issues, and how many actually did it. If involvement happened, they also checked at which stages of the research process it took place (like planning, doing the study, making sense of the results, or sharing the findings). Plus, they looked into how deep this involvement went (simply asking for opinions, actively involving them, or being full partners).

One of the main points they found was that, even though many studies talked about involving people with lived experiences, a lot of them didn't actually do it. It's like talking about having pizza for dinner, but then not ordering any. When involvement did happen, it usually happened early on, like in the planning stage. But it wasn't as common in the later stages, like when interpreting results or sharing the findings.

It's also interesting to note that while many studies said they involved people with lived experiences, not all of them did it in the same way. Some just consulted with them, while others went further and actively involved them or even made them full partners in the research process.

This all brings up an important question: why is there a gap between talking about involvement and actually doing it? And why doesn't this involvement happen more consistently across all stages of research?

How Often Do Psychiatry Researchers Involve People With Lived Experience?

Actions