5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Evidence-informed, experience-based co-design: a novel framework integrating research evidence and lived experience in priority-setting and co-design of health services

      review-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

          ABSTRACT
          Objective

          To describe a new co-design framework termed Evidence-informed, Experience-based Co-design (E2CD).

          Background

          Involving consumers and clinicians in planning, designing and implementing services results in the end-product being more likely to meet the needs of end-users and increases the likelihood of their uptake and sustainability. Different forms and definitions of co-design have been described in the literature and have had varying levels of success in health service redesign. However, many fall short of including people with lived experience in all aspects of the process, particularly in setting priorities for service (re)design. In addition, health services need to deliver evidence-based care as well as care that meets the needs of users, yet few ways of integrating research evidence into co-design processes are described. This paper describes a new framework to approach co-design which addresses these issues. We believe that it offers a roadmap to address some of healthcare’s most wicked problems and potentially improve outcomes for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. We use improving services for people with high healthcare service utilisation as a working example of the Framework’s application.

          Conclusion

          Evidence-informed experience-based co-design has the potential to be used as a framework for co-design that integrates research evidence with lived experience and provides people with lived experience a central role in decision-making about prioritising and designing services to meet their needs.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • 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

            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: not found

              Experience-based design: from redesigning the system around the patient to co-designing services with the patient.

              Involving patients in service improvement and listening and responding to what they say has played a key part in the redesign of healthcare processes over the past five years and more. Patients and users have attended stakeholder events, participated in discovery interviews, completed surveys, mapped healthcare processes and even designed new hospitals with healthcare staff. However, to date efforts have not necessarily focused on the patient's experience, beyond asking what was good and what was not. Questions were not asked to find out details of what the experience was or should be like ("experience" being different from "attitudes") and the information then systematically used to co-design services with patients. Knowledge of the experience, held only by the patient, is unique and precious. In this paper, attention is drawn to the burgeoning discipline of the design sciences and experience-based design, in which the traditional view of the user as a passive recipient of a product or service has begun to give way to the new view of users as integral to the improvement and innovation process.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2024
                8 August 2024
                : 14
                : 8
                : e084620
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentMenzies Institute for Medical Research , University of Tasmania , Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
                [2 ]Bellberry Ltd , Eastwood, South Australia, Australia
                [3 ]KPHealth , Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
                [4 ]Primary Health Tasmania , Launceston, Tasmania, Australia
                Author notes

                None declared.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9721-9225
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4112-3491
                Article
                bmjopen-2024-084620
                10.1136/bmjopen-2024-084620
                11404138
                39122385
                8526ddaf-3e02-4f7f-a80b-d9502c295eac
                Copyright © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 24 January 2024
                : 22 July 2024
                Funding
                Funded by: Australian Government Research Training Program;
                Award ID: N/A
                Funded by: Primary Health Tasmania;
                Award ID: N/A
                Categories
                Communication
                Public Health
                1724
                1506

                Medicine
                health policy,organisation of health services,patient participation,primary health care,public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article