Social contact refers to the facilitation of connection and interactions between people with and without mental health conditions. It can be achieved, for example, through people sharing their lived experience of mental health conditions, which is an effective strategy for stigma reduction. Meaningful involvement of people with lived experience (PWLE) in leading and co-leading anti-stigma interventions can/may promote autonomy and resilience. Our paper aimed to explore how PWLE have been involved in research and anti-stigma interventions to improve effective means of involving PWLE in stigma reduction activities in LMICs. A qualitative collective case study design was adopted. Case studies from four LMICs (China, Ethiopia, India and Nepal) are summarized, briefly reflecting on the background of the work, alongside anticipated and experienced challenges, strategies to overcome these, and recommendations for future work. We found that the involvement of PWLEs in stigma reduction is commonly a new concept in LMIC. Experienced and anticipated challenges were similar, such as identifying suitable persons to engage in the work and sustaining their involvement. Such an approach can be difficult because PWLE might be apprehensive about the negative consequences of disclosure. In many case studies, we found that long-standing professional connectedness, continued encouragement, information sharing, debriefing and support helped the participants’ involvement. We recommend that confidentiality of the individual, cultural norms and family concerns be prioritized and respected during the implementation. Taking into account socio-cultural contextual factors, it is possible to directly involve PWLEs in social contact-based anti-stigma interventions.

The aim of this study was to investigate, from a lived experience perspective, specialist psychological therapists’ views on therapeutic adaptations to cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) for autism that are most helpful for service users and enable best practice. Psychological therapist participants took part in semi-structured interviews led by a researcher with lived experience of autism. A thematic analysis was carried out. Participants (n=8) reported that challenges for service users were anxiety about the therapeutic relationship; communication difficulties with understanding and being understood; emotion recognition difficulties impeding trust and development of the therapeutic relationship; relationships with family interfering with the intervention; information processing impairments, necessitating a slower pace to the intervention; and avoidance of therapy due to anxiety. Goals were forming relationships and building social confidence and skills. Demographic differences were age, with older service users deemed less open to change and younger service users less mature and more often accompanied by family; and gender, with female service users deemed more socially able than males. Therapeutic adaptations were to increase collaboration; support emotional literacy, to help service users understand their own and others’ emotions; focus on special interests; use visual prompts, to improve communication and understanding; be consistent, to build trust and reduce anxiety; accommodate sensory needs, to reduce anxiety and build engagement; avoid metaphors, to reduce communication difficulties; and use role-play, to build and enhance social skills. Therefore, adapting CBT may support clinicians and reduce challenges for people with autism, while lived experience perspectives ensure adaptations meet service users’ needs.

People with neurodevelopmental disorders often present with challenging behaviours and psychiatric illnesses. Diagnosis and treatment require patients, families and healthcare professionals to work closely together in partnership, acknowledging their respective areas of expertise. Good treatment outcomes should also be underpinned by robust research evidence. Key research priorities are highlighted.

Drawing on participatory research with people living in poverty, this article details the possibilities inherent in this research tradition and its particular applicability and as yet often unrealised potential for poverty and social security research. The dominant framing of ‘welfare’ and poverty foregrounds elite political and politicised accounts, which place emphasis on individual and behavioural drivers of poverty, and imply that the receipt of ‘welfare’ is necessarily and inevitably problematic. A large body of academic evidence counters this framing, illustrating the extent to which popular characterisations are out of step with lived realities. What is often missing, however, are the voices and expertise of those directly affected by poverty and welfare reform. This article argues that placing experts by experience on poverty at the centre of research efforts is best understood as constituting a direct challenge to the marginalising and silencing of the voices and perspectives of people living in poverty. While this hints at participatory research’s great potential, it is vital also to recognise the inherent challenges of taking a participatory approach. Significantly, though, participatory research can undermine popular characterisations of poverty and welfare and provide opportunities for alternative narratives to emerge, narratives which could contribute to the building of a pro-welfare imaginary over time.