1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Tapping into the power of coproduction and knowledge mobilisation: Exploration of a facilitated interactive group learning approach to support equity‐sensitive decision‐making in local health and care services

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          We report on a study of a facilitated interactive group learning approach, through Collaborative Implementation Groups (CIGs), established to enhance capacity for equity‐sensitive evaluation of healthcare services to inform local decision‐making: (1) What was the experience of participants of the CIGs? (2) How was knowledge mobilisation achieved? (3) What are the key elements that enhance the process of coproducing equity‐sensitive evaluations?

          Methods

          A thematic analysis of qualitative data obtained from focus group (FG) discussions and semistructured interviews exploring the experiences of participants. All FGs included representation of participants from different projects across the programme. Interviews were conducted with a member from each of the teams participating in the first cohort after their final workshop.

          Results

          We identified four themes to illustrate how the approach to delivering intensive and facilitated training supported equity‐sensitive evaluations of local healthcare services: (1) Creating the setting for coproduction and knowledge mobilisation; (2) establishing a common purpose, meaning and language for reducing health inequalities; (3) making connections and brokering relationships and (4) challenging and transforming the role of evaluation.

          Conclusion

          We report on the implementation of a practical example of engaged scholarship, where teams of healthcare staff were supported with resources, interactive training and methodological advice to evaluate their own services, enabling organisations to assemble timely practical and relevant evidence that could feed directly into local decision‐making. By encouraging mixed teams of practitioners, commissioners, patients, the public and researchers to work together to coproduce their evaluations, the programme also aimed to systematise health equity into service change. The findings of our study illustrate that the approach to delivering training gave participants the tools and confidence to address their organisation's stated aims of reducing health inequalities, coproduce evaluations of their local services and mobilise knowledge from a range of stakeholders.

          Patient or Public Contribution

          The research question was developed collaboratively with researchers, partner organisations and public advisers (PAs). PAs were involved in meetings to agree on the focus of this research and to plan the analysis. N. T. is a PA and coauthor, contributing to the interpretation of findings and drafting of the paper.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?

          Background Coproduction, a collaborative model of research that includes stakeholders in the research process, has been widely advocated as a means of facilitating research use and impact. We summarise the arguments in favour of coproduction, the different approaches to establishing coproductive work and their costs, and offer some advice as to when and how to consider coproduction. Debate Despite the multiplicity of reasons and incentives to coproduce, there is little consensus about what coproduction is, why we do it, what effects we are trying to achieve, or the best coproduction techniques to achieve policy, practice or population health change. Furthermore, coproduction is not free risk or cost. Tensions can arise throughout coproduced research processes between the different interests involved. We identify five types of costs associated with coproduced research affecting the research itself, the research process, professional risks for researchers and stakeholders, personal risks for researchers and stakeholders, and risks to the wider cause of scholarship. Yet, these costs are rarely referred to in the literature, which generally calls for greater inclusion of stakeholders in research processes, focusing exclusively on potential positives. There are few tools to help researchers avoid or alleviate risks to themselves and their stakeholders. Conclusions First, we recommend identifying specific motivations for coproduction and clarifying exactly which outcomes are required for whom for any particular piece of research. Second, we suggest selecting strategies specifically designed to enable these outcomes to be achieved, and properly evaluated. Finally, in the absence of strong evidence about the impact and process of coproduction, we advise a cautious approach to coproduction. This would involve conscious and reflective research practice, evaluation of how coproduced research practices change outcomes, and exploration of the costs and benefits of coproduction. We propose some preliminary advice to help decide when coproduction is likely to be more or less useful.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Research co-design in health: a rapid overview of reviews

            Background Billions of dollars are lost annually in health research that fails to create meaningful benefits for patients. Engaging in research co-design – the meaningful involvement of end-users in research – may help address this research waste. This rapid overview of reviews addressed three related questions, namely (1) what approaches to research co-design exist in health settings? (2) What activities do these research co-design approaches involve? (3) What do we know about the effectiveness of existing research co-design approaches? The review focused on the study planning phase of research, defined as the point up to which the research question and study design are finalised. Methods Reviews of research co-design were systematically identified using a rapid overview of reviews approach (PROSPERO: CRD42019123034). The search strategy encompassed three academic databases, three grey literature databases, and a hand-search of the journal Research Involvement and Engagement. Two reviewers independently conducted the screening and data extraction and resolved disagreements through discussion. Disputes were resolved through discussion with a senior author (PB). One reviewer performed quality assessment. The results were narratively synthesised. Results A total of 26 records (reporting on 23 reviews) met the inclusion criteria. Reviews varied widely in their application of ‘research co-design’ and their application contexts, scope and theoretical foci. The research co-design approaches identified involved interactions with end-users outside of study planning, such as recruitment and dissemination. Activities involved in research co-design included focus groups, interviews and surveys. The effectiveness of research co-design has rarely been evaluated empirically or experimentally; however, qualitative exploration has described the positive and negative outcomes associated with co-design. The research provided many recommendations for conducting research co-design, including training participating end-users in research skills, having regular communication between researchers and end-users, setting clear end-user expectations, and assigning set roles to all parties involved in co-design. Conclusions Research co-design appears to be widely used but seldom described or evaluated in detail. Though it has rarely been tested empirically or experimentally, existing research suggests that it can benefit researchers, practitioners, research processes and research outcomes. Realising the potential of research co-design may require the development of clearer and more consistent terminology, better reporting of the activities involved and better evaluation.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              What outcomes are associated with developing and implementing co-produced interventions in acute healthcare settings? A rapid evidence synthesis

              Background Co-production is defined as the voluntary or involuntary involvement of users in the design, management, delivery and/or evaluation of services. Interest in co-production as an intervention for improving healthcare quality is increasing. In the acute healthcare context, co-production is promoted as harnessing the knowledge of patients, carers and staff to make changes about which they care most. However, little is known regarding the impact of co-production on patient, staff or organisational outcomes in these settings. Aims To identify and appraise reported outcomes of co-production as an intervention to improve quality of services in acute healthcare settings. Design Rapid evidence synthesis. Data sources Medline, Cinahl, Web of Science, Embase, HMIC, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, SCIE, Proquest Dissertation and Theses, EThOS, OpenGrey; CoDesign; The Design Journal; Design Issues. Study selection Studies reporting patient, staff or organisational outcomes associated with using co-production in an acute healthcare setting. Findings 712 titles and abstracts were screened; 24 papers underwent full-text review, and 11 papers were included in the evidence synthesis. One study was a feasibility randomised controlled trial, three were process evaluations and seven used descriptive qualitative approaches. Reported outcomes related to (a) the value of patient and staff involvement in co-production processes; (b) the generation of ideas for changes to processes, practices and clinical environments; and (c) tangible service changes and impacts on patient experiences. Only one study included cost analysis; none reported an economic evaluation. No studies assessed the sustainability of any changes made. Conclusions Despite increasing interest in and advocacy for co-production, there is a lack of rigorous evaluation in acute healthcare settings. Future studies should evaluate clinical and service outcomes as well as the cost-effectiveness of co-production relative to other forms of quality improvement. Potentially broader impacts on the values and behaviours of participants should also be considered.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Programme Managerjcloke@liverpool.ac.uk
                Role: Research Associate
                Role: Research Fellow
                Role: Research Associate
                Role: Reader
                Role: Public Advisor
                Role: Professor
                Journal
                Health Expect
                Health Expect
                10.1111/(ISSN)1369-7625
                HEX
                Health Expectations : An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care and Health Policy
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1369-6513
                1369-7625
                08 May 2023
                August 2023
                : 26
                : 4 ( doiID: 10.1111/hex.v26.4 )
                : 1692-1702
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Primary Care and Mental Health University of Liverpool Liverpool UK
                [ 2 ] School of Psychology Liverpool John Moores University Liverpool UK
                [ 3 ] NIHR ARC NWC Liverpool UK
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence Jane Cloke, PhD, Department of Primary Care and Mental Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

                Email: jcloke@ 123456liverpool.ac.uk

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6332-9186
                Article
                HEX13774
                10.1111/hex.13774
                10349235
                37154125
                ca991899-61ba-474c-aab9-795b8b9d474f
                © 2023 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 24 April 2023
                : 05 September 2022
                : 25 April 2023
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 2, Pages: 11, Words: 7967
                Funding
                Funded by: NIHR Applied Research Collaboration North West Coast
                Categories
                Original Article
                Original Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                August 2023
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.3.2 mode:remove_FC converted:15.07.2023

                Health & Social care
                capacity building,coproduction,health inequalities,knowledge mobilisation
                Health & Social care
                capacity building, coproduction, health inequalities, knowledge mobilisation

                Comments

                Comment on this article