It was good to hear from 42 Next Generation Researcher Network and the Lived-Experience Research Collective members at the e-networking annual event last month about what meaningful change is needed, what a flourishing research ecosystem would look like, and what the network's role would be.

Yes though what's promoted is that it takes a 'trials expert' to say what is known as high quality design www.bmj.com/content/374/... While this editor validates process evals to be embedded and not added on, a trials expert saying it means it might get listened to as they are an expert after all!

So far from co-design and focus groups methods themselves too where interaction in the group, composition of the group and ways people engaged and contributed need to be front and centre.

#2 - I am one of the cobiquity paper co-authors too and I feel that focus groups as #co-design is not so much about the conflation of meanings and practices from collaborative traditions either - it's outright not knowing what co-design is. Often focus groups are written incorrectly too.

#1 - Yes! I have two points one is to say for the CORE study in mental health we ran focus groups to agree on which touchpoints to set #codesign objectives ahead of codesign. It was how the orgs who had developed the adapted methods had done it. Focus groups AS codesign is a great shame though.

Here is what codesigners in our codesign network and mental health research translation Centre (who are people bringing lived experience of mental ill-health and ongoing distress and carer family and kinship groups) created as their version of a review paper

alivenetwork.com.au/our-research...