More than a method: trusting relationships, productive tensions, and two-way learning as mechanisms of authentic co-production.

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

Knowledge mobilisation requires the effective elicitation and blending of different types of knowledge or ways of knowing, to produce hybrid knowledge outputs that are valuable to both knowledge producers (researchers) and knowledge users (health care stakeholders). Patients and service users are a neglected user group, and there is a need for transparent reporting and critical review of methods used to co-produce knowledge with patients. This study aimed to explore the potential of participatory codesign methods as a mechanism of supporting knowledge sharing, and to evaluate this from the perspective of both researchers and patients.

Related collections

Most cited references 41

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Knowledge translation of research findings

Jeremy M. Grimshaw, Martin Eccles, John Lavis … (2012)

Background One of the most consistent findings from clinical and health services research is the failure to translate research into practice and policy. As a result of these evidence-practice and policy gaps, patients fail to benefit optimally from advances in healthcare and are exposed to unnecessary risks of iatrogenic harms, and healthcare systems are exposed to unnecessary expenditure resulting in significant opportunity costs. Over the last decade, there has been increasing international policy and research attention on how to reduce the evidence-practice and policy gap. In this paper, we summarise the current concepts and evidence to guide knowledge translation activities, defined as T2 research (the translation of new clinical knowledge into improved health). We structure the article around five key questions: what should be transferred; to whom should research knowledge be transferred; by whom should research knowledge be transferred; how should research knowledge be transferred; and, with what effect should research knowledge be transferred? Discussion We suggest that the basic unit of knowledge translation should usually be up-to-date systematic reviews or other syntheses of research findings. Knowledge translators need to identify the key messages for different target audiences and to fashion these in language and knowledge translation products that are easily assimilated by different audiences. The relative importance of knowledge translation to different target audiences will vary by the type of research and appropriate endpoints of knowledge translation may vary across different stakeholder groups. There are a large number of planned knowledge translation models, derived from different disciplinary, contextual (i.e., setting), and target audience viewpoints. Most of these suggest that planned knowledge translation for healthcare professionals and consumers is more likely to be successful if the choice of knowledge translation strategy is informed by an assessment of the likely barriers and facilitators. Although our evidence on the likely effectiveness of different strategies to overcome specific barriers remains incomplete, there is a range of informative systematic reviews of interventions aimed at healthcare professionals and consumers (i.e., patients, family members, and informal carers) and of factors important to research use by policy makers. Summary There is a substantial (if incomplete) evidence base to guide choice of knowledge translation activities targeting healthcare professionals and consumers. The evidence base on the effects of different knowledge translation approaches targeting healthcare policy makers and senior managers is much weaker but there are a profusion of innovative approaches that warrant further evaluation.

0 comments Cited 380 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

The co-production of what? Knowledge, values, and social relations in health care

Angela Filipe, Alicia Renedo, Cicely Marston (2017)

“Co-production” is becoming an increasingly popular term in policymaking, governance, and research. While the shift from engagement and involvement to co-production in health care holds the promise of revolutionising health services and research, it is not always evident what counts as co-production: what is being produced, under what circumstances, and with what implications for participants. We discuss these questions and propose that co-production can be understood as an exploratory space and a generative process that leads to different, and sometimes unexpected, forms of knowledge, values, and social relations. By opening up this discussion, we hope to stimulate future debates on co-production as well as draw out ways of thinking differently about collaboration and participation in health care and research. Part of the title of this article is inspired by the book “The Social Construction of What?” by Ian Hacking (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2000).

0 comments Cited 121 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Theoretical directions for an emancipatory concept of patient and public involvement.

James Lynch, Nicky Britten, Andy Gibson (2012)

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is now firmly embedded in the policies of the Department of Health in England. This article commences with a review of the changing structures of PPI in English health and social care, largely in terms of their own explicit rationales, using that as a spring board for the development of a general theoretical framework. Arguing that all democratic states face major dilemmas in seeking to meet conflicting demands and expectations for involvement, we identify the diverse and sometimes conflicting cultural and political features embedded in current models of involvement in England, in a context of rapid delegitimation of the wider political system. We identify some of the major inherent weaknesses of a monolithic, single-track model of patient and public involvement in the management and running of health and social care systems. Although the mechanisms and methods for delivering this may vary we suggest the model remains fundamentally the same. We also suggest why the current structures are unlikely to provide an effective response either to the pluralism of values, ideologies and social groups engaged in the sector or to the valuing of lay knowledge which could potentially sustain the social networks essential for effective participation and service improvement. The article proposes a four dimensional framework for analysing the nature of PPI. These dimensions, it is argued, provide the co-ordinates along which new 'knowledge spaces' for PPI could be constructed. These knowledge spaces could facilitate and support the emergence of social networks of knowledgeable actors capable of engaging with professionals on equal terms and influencing service provision.

0 comments Cited 101 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Res Involv Engagem

Title: Research involvement and engagement

Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC

ISSN (Electronic): 2056-7529

ISSN (Print): 2056-7529

Publication date (Electronic): May 31 2021

Volume: 7

Issue: 1

Affiliations

[1 ] Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK. sarah.knowles@york.ac.uk.

[2 ] Patients in the Learning Health System PPI Group, NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Greater Manchester University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. sarah.knowles@york.ac.uk.

[3 ] Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.

[4 ] Patients in the Learning Health System PPI Group, NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Greater Manchester University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

[5 ] School of Medicine, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT, Leeds, UK.

Article

Publisher Item ID: 10.1186/s40900-021-00262-5

DOI: 10.1186/s40900-021-00262-5

PMC ID: 8165763

PubMed ID: 34059159

SO-VID: abb5bfa6-1150-41a9-a162-1d0716f10d89

History

Keywords: Co-design,Co-production,Knowledge mobilisation,Participatory methods,Patient engagement,Patient involvement

Data availability:

Keywords: Co-design, Co-production, Knowledge mobilisation, Participatory methods, Patient engagement, Patient involvement

More than a method: trusting relationships, productive tensions, and two-way learning as mechanisms of authentic co-production.

Read this article at

Abstract

Related collections

SDG: 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

Most cited references 41

Knowledge translation of research findings

The co-production of what? Knowledge, values, and social relations in health care

Theoretical directions for an emancipatory concept of patient and public involvement.

Author and article information

Journal

Affiliations

Article

History

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 9

Cited by 34

Most referenced authors 485