Co-production of knowledge: the future

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

A new collection highlights the role of co-production in strengthening health systems

Related collections

Most cited references 14

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co‐design pilot

Trisha Greenhalgh, Lisa Hinton, Teresa Finlay … (2019)

Abstract Background Numerous frameworks for supporting, evaluating and reporting patient and public involvement in research exist. The literature is diverse and theoretically heterogeneous. Objectives To identify and synthesize published frameworks, consider whether and how these have been used, and apply design principles to improve usability. Search strategy Keyword search of six databases; hand search of eight journals; ancestry and snowball search; requests to experts. Inclusion criteria Published, systematic approaches (frameworks) designed to support, evaluate or report on patient or public involvement in health‐related research. Data extraction and synthesis Data were extracted on provenance; collaborators and sponsors; theoretical basis; lay input; intended user(s) and use(s); topics covered; examples of use; critiques; and updates. We used the Canadian Centre for Excellence on Partnerships with Patients and Public (CEPPP) evaluation tool and hermeneutic methodology to grade and synthesize the frameworks. In five co‐design workshops, we tested evidence‐based resources based on the review findings. Results Our final data set consisted of 65 frameworks, most of which scored highly on the CEPPP tool. They had different provenances, intended purposes, strengths and limitations. We grouped them into five categories: power‐focused; priority‐setting; study‐focused; report‐focused; and partnership‐focused. Frameworks were used mainly by the groups who developed them. The empirical component of our study generated a structured format and evidence‐based facilitator notes for a “build your own framework” co‐design workshop. Conclusion The plethora of frameworks combined with evidence of limited transferability suggests that a single, off‐the‐shelf framework may be less useful than a menu of evidence‐based resources which stakeholders can use to co‐design their own frameworks.

0 comments Cited 377 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

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

Kathryn Oliver, Anita Kothari, Nicholas Mays (2019)

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.

0 comments Cited 300 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Effective engagement and involvement with community stakeholders in the co-production of global health research

Doreen Tembo, Gary Hickey, Cristián Montenegro … (2021)

Doreen Tembo and colleagues argue that small changes as well as larger system-wide changes can strengthen citizens’ contribution to knowledge in health research

0 comments Cited 77 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

S Redman: Role: chief executive

T Greenhalgh: Role: professor

L Adedokun: Role: director

S Staniszewska: Role: professor

S Denegri: Role: executive director and patient advocate

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMJ

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): BMJ

Journal ID (publisher-id): BMJ-UK

Journal ID (hwp): bmj

Title: The BMJ

Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

ISSN (Print): 0959-8138

ISSN (Electronic): 1756-1833

Publication date Collection: 2021

Publication date (Electronic): 16 February 2021

Volume: 372

Electronic Location Identifier: n434

Affiliations

[1 ]Sax Institute, Sydney, Australia

[2 ]University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

[3 ]Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, New York, USA

[4 ]Warwick Research in Nursing, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Warwick UK

[5 ]Academy of Medical Sciences, London, UK

[6]Correspondence to: S Redman sally.redman@ 123456saxinstitute.org.au

Article

Publisher ID: reds110221

DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n434

PMC ID: 7884902

PubMed ID: 33593753

SO-VID: 45b77db6-f0d5-4b86-b8b7-0bc14b80c33f

License:

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution IGO License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/igo/), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction for non-commercial purposes in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

History

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Smart Citations

Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting

View Citations

See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

Co-production of knowledge: the future

Read this article at

Abstract

Related collections

A Sustainable Future

Most cited references 14

Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co‐design pilot

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

Effective engagement and involvement with community stakeholders in the co-production of global health research

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Article

History

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Cited by 71

Most referenced authors 141