No abstract

This article is a response to Oliver et al.'s Commentary 'The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?' recently published in Health Research Policy and Systems (2019, 17:33). The original commentary raises some important questions about how and when to co-produce health research, including highlighting various professional costs to those involved. However, we identify four related limitations in their inquiry, as follows: (1) the adoption of a problematically expansive definition of co-production that fails to acknowledge key features that distinguish co-production from broader collaboration; (2) a strong focus on technocratic rationales for co-producing research and a relative neglect of democratic rationales; (3) the transposition of legitimate concerns relating to collaboration between researchers and practitioners onto work with patients, service users and marginalised citizens; and (4) the presentation of bad practice as an inherent flaw, or indeed 'dark side', of co-production without attending to the corrupting influence of contextual factors within academic research that facilitate and even promote such malpractice. The Commentary's limitations can be seen to reflect the contemporary use of the term 'co-production' more broadly. We describe this phenomenon as 'cobiquity'an apparent appetite for participatory research practice and increased emphasis on partnership working, in combination with the related emergence of a plethora of 'co' words, promoting a conflation of meanings and practices from different collaborative traditions. This phenomenon commonly leads to a misappropriation of the term 'co-production'. Our main motivation is to address this imprecision and the detrimental impact it has on efforts to enable co-production with marginalised and disadvantaged groups. We conclude that Oliver et al. stray too close to 'the problem' of 'co-production' seeing only the dark side rather than what is casting the shadows. We warn against such a restricted view and argue for greater scrutiny of the structural factors that largely explain academia's failure to accommodate and promote the egalitarian and utilitarian potential of co-produced research.

Neuroinflammation is a key element in the ischemic cascade after cerebral ischemia that results in cell damage and death in the subacute phase. However, anti-inflammatory drugs do not improve outcome in clinical settings suggesting that the neuroinflammatory response after an ischemic stroke is not entirely detrimental. This review describes the different key players in neuroinflammation and their possible detrimental and protective effects in stroke. Because of its inhibitory influence on several pathways of the ischemic cascade, hypothermia has been introduced as a promising neuroprotective strategy. This review also discusses the influence of hypothermia on the neuroinflammatory response. We conclude that hypothermia exerts both stimulating and inhibiting effects on different aspects of neuroinflammation and hypothesize that these effects are key to neuroprotection.

The impacts of stroke and the processes of adjusting to it unfold over time. This presents a new challenge for resilience research. Processes of adjustment, like resilience, draw on personal, inter-personal and structural resources. But the reviewed studies point to the importance of an emic perspective on adversity, social support, and what constitutes a "good" outcome when researching resilience, and to a greater focus on embodiment. Implications for Rehabilitation Stroke is a sudden onset condition which for around a third of people has long-term consequences. Stroke can cause a variety of physical and cognitive impairments, some of which may not be obvious to an outsider. As well as physical functioning, stroke can have a profound effect on survivors' sense of self and on their relationships. Stroke survivors' accounts suggest that relationships (including relationships with health care professionals) and structural factors (such as access to health services, employment possibilities and welfare systems) mediate efforts to adjust after stroke. While there is considerable overlap between notions of adjustment and resilience, the experiences of stroke survivors suggest further issues that need to be addressed in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of resilience.

No abstract