Table 6 Summary of Recommendations

Recommendations for improving co-produced psychosis research

• Improve guidelines for co-production, for example, by standardising language and assessment criteria for different approaches to involvement

• Report characteristics of research participants as well as those involved in co-production

• Formally evaluate the co-production component, reporting clear outcomes and lessons learned (i.e., barriers, facilitators, etc.)

• Seek to target under-represented groups in co-production; for example, people with psychosis in LMICs

• Pay attention to power differences, be mindful of mental health stigma (e.g., language etc.) and safeguarding concerns that may arise in the research

• Support stakeholders buy-in by prioritising good communication (e.g., setting goals and guidelines at the start of the project) and encourage creative formats that allow for an iterative research study

Recommendations for reviews of co-produced psychosis research

• Consider more robust methods of screening for co-production; for example, by incorporating both INVOLVE (2018) principles and features in assessing eligibility

• Consider thresholds for involvement of people with psychosis, specifically; where diverse stakeholders are involved and/or characteristics are not reported, follow up with authors where possible and have a protocol for finalising screening decisions

• Involve a multilingual advisory group with varied regional expertise in refining search terms and screen in multiple languages

• Test search strategy to identify a parsimonious but inclusive set of search terms related to co-production

• Include grey literature and incorporate additional sources of literature (e.g., hand searches, expert consultation, etc.)

• Use double-screening (titles/abstracts/full-texts) and quality appraisal as well as data extraction, etc. to improve reliability