Co-production practice and future research priorities in United Kingdom-funded applied health research: a scoping review

PPIE in a technical research study: Using public involvement to refine the concept and understanding and move towards a multidimensional concept of disability

BACKGROUND

Disability is often an essentialised and oversimplified concept. We propose refining this while incorporating the multidimensional nature of disability by increasing the use of existing survey questions and their corresponding data to enrich, broaden and inform understandings of disability.

METHODS

We combined patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) with focus groups and concept mapping to collaboratively map disability survey questions into conceptual models of disability with six members of the public with lived experiences of disability.

RESULTS

Using reflexive thematic analysis, we identified three qualitative themes and eight subthemes through a series of four PPIE activities: (1) understanding concepts of disability based on individual experience, subthemes: 1.1-preference for the biopsychosocial model, 1.2-'Reviewing' instead of mapping survey questions and 1.3-comparing questions to real life; (2) consistency between understanding needs and implementing adjustments, subthemes: 2.1-connecting preparation and operation, 2.2-inclusivity and adjustments in activities and 2.3-feedback for improving activities and (3) real-world applications-targeted awareness raising, subthemes: 3.1-who, where, what and how to share activity findings and results, 3.2-sharing with human resource and equality, diversity and inclusion professionals.

CONCLUSION

Members of the public who collaborated in these activities felt empowered, engaged and supported throughout this study. This approach offers a model for other researchers to cede power to the public over the research aspects typically reserved for researchers.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

We involved members of the public with lived experience throughout this study-co-design, co-facilitation, collaboratively mapping the disability or disability-related survey questions into conceptual models of disability, evaluation of the activities, co-analysis and co-authorship.

How often are infusion sets for central venous catheters changed in Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Units? A point prevalence survey

BACKGROUND

Infusion sets (comprising the tubing, measuring burettes, fluid containers, transducers) that are connected to invasive vascular devices are changed on a regular basis in an effort to reduce bacterial colonisation and bloodstream infection. There is a balance between reducing infection and creating unnecessary waste. Current evidence suggests that for central venous catheters (CVCs), changing infusion sets at 7 days does not increase infection risks.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to describe the current unit guidelines in Australian and New Zealand intensive care units (ICUs) for changing infusion sets for CVCs.

METHODS

prospective cross-sectional point prevalence study, as a part of the 2021 Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Point Prevalence Program.

PARTICIPANTS

Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) adult ICUs and their patients on the day of the study.

RESULTS

Data were collected from 51 ICUs across ANZ. One-third of these (16/49) ICUs had a guideline that specified a 7-day replacement period, with the rest having a more frequent replacement period.

CONCLUSION

Most ICUs participating in this survey had policies to change their CVC infusion tubing in 3-4 days, and recent high-level evidence supports an update to extend this to 7 days. There remains work to be done to spread this evidence to ANZ ICUs and improve environmental sustainability initiatives.

Ready, set, co(produce): a co-operative inquiry into co-producing research to explore adolescent health and wellbeing in the Born in Bradford Age of Wonder project

BACKGROUND

Co-production of research with communities and stakeholders is recognised as best practice, but despite this, transparent reporting and reflective accounts on co-producing research is lacking. Born in Bradford Age of Wonder (AoW) is a large longitudinal health research project, following the health trajectories of up to 30,000 young people across the Bradford district; moreover, AoW has been entirely co-produced with teachers, parents, and young people. This paper describes the co-production of the Born in Bradford Age of Wonder (AoW) project and shares general reflections on co-production from peer researchers involved in co-producing AoW.

METHODS

A co-operative inquiry (CI) approach was used to gather written reflections on co-production from ten peer researchers (one teacher, one parent, eight young people) involved in co-producing the AoW project. Written reflections were collected and rough "themes" were identified using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Four key 'themes' were identified: (1) promoting young people's voice and views (2) identifying impacts of co-production, (3) fostering a collaborative ethos, and (4) suggested improvements to the co-production work in AoW. Peer researchers' reflections highlighted how co-production can positively impact research projects such as AoW, whilst also holding broader benefits including giving young people a voice, facilitating their personal development, and fostering a collaborative ethos both within AoW and with partner organisations. Suggested improvements to AoW co-production included supporting greater numbers of young people and researchers to engage in co-production, organising more regular sessions, and establishing clearer communication channels.

CONCLUSIONS

Peer researchers' reflections highlight positive impacts of engaging in co-production, both for research projects (including AoW) and for peer researchers' personal and professional development. That said, continued efforts are needed in AoW to meet young people's needs and interests, maintain trusting relationships, and foster sustained growth of co-production efforts within and beyond the AoW project. Evaluation of AoW co-production, along with wider partnership building are key to these efforts.

Exploring perspectives of stigma and discrimination among people with lived experience of mental health conditions: a co-produced qualitative study

Background

Efforts to understand the mechanisms and consequences of mental health-related stigma and discrimination need to center the perspectives of people affected by these negative impacts, through research efforts that are led or co-led by people with lived experience (PWLE) of mental health conditions.

Methods

This study used co-production principles to explore global perspectives of stigma and discrimination among people meeting the inclusion criteria of identifying as PWLEs and being willing to share their experiences of stigma and discrimination resulting from a diagnosis of a mental health condition, and who had also participated in anti-stigma activities. Participants were recruited online via a self-selecting snowball sampling method. Qualitative data were collected from respondents via an anonymous global online survey conducted between 12/01/2021 and 02/28/2022. The main outcomes assessed were open-ended, qualitative responses to questions exploring experiences of stigma and discrimination, experiences regarding diagnoses, language/terminology related to mental health, impact of stigma and discrimination, and involvement with anti-stigma interventions. Data were synthesised through digital text network analysis and thematic content analysis.

Findings

A total of 198 respondents from over 30 countries across Europe, the Americas, Africa, Asia, and Australia/Oceania were included in the study. The results reflected five themes: 1) the role of language and words; 2) the role of media in perpetuating and reducing stigma; 3) societal reactions to mental health conditions and strategies to cope with these; 4) knowledge about activities to reduce stigma and discrimination and their impact; and 5) personal involvement in activities to reduce stigma and discrimination.

Interpretation

The findings highlight that people with mental health conditions are aware of and experience stigma and discrimination across core domains of daily life. The importance of recognising the key role PWLEs can play in efforts to reduce stigma and discrimination was highlighted, and how they can be appropriately supported to contribute and have their experiential expertise recognised. Meaningful and authentic collaborations between PWLEs and other stakeholders can enhance the quality and relevance of strategies to reduce stigma and discrimination. This is, to our knowledge, the first study of its kind to use a co-production approach to explore experiences and reflections of stigma and discrimination related to mental health from a global perspective. However, the results are not broadly representative of the general PWLE population or suggestive of globally uniform experiences of stigma and discrimination.

Funding

None.

Determining the destination: a co-designed chronic advanced cancer rehabilitation conceptual framework for engagement of individuals with lived experience in rehabilitation research

BACKGROUND

Individuals living with chronic advanced cancer (CAC) often face distinct physical, functional, and cognitive issues. Their rehabilitation needs are not yet routinely met, warranting further CAC-specific rehabilitation-based research. Given the complexity of functional and symptom presentations, engagement of individuals living with CAC as partners in the research process is encouraged to better understand the lived perspective. Formal engagement requires both structured approaches and iterative processes. The aim was to co-design a conceptual framework to develop and integrate engagement strategies into rehabilitation research focused on CAC populations.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary team of authors, including two individuals with lived experience, conducted an implementation-focused descriptive study to inform future research design, including: interviews and follow-up, review of current models and approaches, and development of a co-designed conceptual framework for engaging individuals with lived experience into CAC-specific rehabilitation research.

RESULTS

Emergent themes include shared understanding, transparent appreciation, iterative processes and unique partnership needs. A definition, guiding principles and tools for engagement were identified. In consultation with individuals with lived experience, and application of the emergent themes in context, a conceptual framework to guide the engagement process was developed.

CONCLUSION

A novel conceptual framework for engaging individuals with lived experience with CAC as partners in rehabilitation research is proposed to facilitate implementation-focused team-based approaches for this population.

Co-designing adult weight management services: a qualitative study exploring barriers, facilitators, and considerations for future commissioning

BACKGROUND

Weight management services have not always benefitted everyone equally. People who live in more deprived areas, racially minoritised communities, those with complex additional needs (e.g., a physical or mental disability), and men are less likely to take part in weight management services. This can subsequently widen health inequalities. One way to counter this is to co-design services with under-served groups to better meet their needs. Using a case study approach, we explored how co-designed adult weight management services were developed, the barriers and facilitators to co-design, and the implications for future commissioning.

METHODS

We selected four case studies of adult weight management services in Southwest England where co-design had been planned, representing a range of populations and settings. In each case, we recruited commissioners and providers of the services, and where possible, community members involved in co-design activities. Interviews were conducted online, audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We interviewed 18 participants (8 female; 10 male): seven commissioners, eight providers, and three community members involved in co-designing the services. The case studies used a range of co-design activities (planned and actualised), from light-touch to more in-depth approaches. In two case studies, co-design activities were planned but were not fully implemented due to organisational time or funding constraints. Co-design was viewed positively by participants as a way of creating more appropriate services and better engagement, thus potentially leading to reduced inequalities. Building relationships- with communities, individual community members, and with partner organisations- was critical for successful co-design and took time and effort. Short-term and unpredictable funding often hindered co-design efforts and could damage relationships with communities. Some commissioners raised concerns over the limited evidence for co-design, while others described having to embrace "a different way of thinking" when commissioning for co-design.

CONCLUSIONS

Co-design is an increasingly popular approach to designing health in services but can be difficult to achieve within traditional funding and commissioning practices. Drawing on our case studies, we present key considerations for those wanting to co-design health services, noting the importance of building strong relationships, creating supportive organisational cultures, and developing the evidence base.

Feasibility and acceptability of multidisciplinary team training in health coaching: Case study in adolescent rheumatology

The central importance of the biopsychosocial model of chronic disease is increasingly recognised in the management of long-term conditions (LTC), which are often associated with chronic pain, fatigue and disability. Despite the physical and mental health impact, 'struggle' to maintain self-efficacy, gap in effective transition to adult pathways and long term consequences of poor disease control and lifestyle choices in young people with LTCs, innovation in this age range is rarely reported in generic journals. This paper explores the feasibility and acceptability of health coaching with young service users to increase engagement and self-management, achieved through multidisciplinary team (MDT) training in Adolescent Rheumatology.

Barriers and enablers of integrated care in the UK: a rapid evidence review of review articles and grey literature 2018-2022

Integrated care refers to person-centered and coordinated, health and social care, and community services. Integrated care systems are partnerships of organizations that deliver health and care services which were placed on a statutory footing in England, April 2022. Due to the need for fast, accessible, and relevant evidence, a rapid review was conducted according to World Health Organization methods to determine barriers and enablers of integrated care across the United Kingdom, 2018-2022. Nine databases were searched for review articles reporting evaluation of integrated care interventions involving medical (clinical and diagnostic) and nonmedical (public health services and community-based or social care/person-centred care) approaches, quality checked with the Critical Appraisal Skills Program qualitative checklist. OpenGrey and hand searches were used to identify grey literature, quality checked with the Authority, Accuracy, Coverage, Objectivity, Date, and Significance checklist. Thirty-four reviews and 21 grey literature reports fitted inclusion criteria of adult physical/mental health outcomes/multiple morbidities. Thematic analysis revealed six themes (collaborative approach; costs; evidence and evaluation; integration of care; professional roles; service user factors) with 20 subthemes including key barriers (cost effectiveness; effectiveness of integrated care; evaluation methods; focus of evidence; future research; impact of integration) and enablers (accessing care; collaboration and partnership; concept of integration; inter-professional relationships; person-centered ethos). Findings indicated a paucity of robust research to evaluate such interventions and lack of standardized methodology to assess cost effectiveness, although there is growing interest in co-production that has engendered information sharing and reduced duplication, and inter-professional collaborations that have bridged task-related gaps and overlaps. The importance of identifying elements of integrated care associated with successful outcomes and determining sustainability of interventions meeting joined-up care and preventive population health objectives was highlighted.

Co-producing digital mental health interventions: A systematic review

Objective

Smartphone apps (apps) are widely recognised as promising tools for improving access to mental healthcare. However, a key challenge is the development of digital interventions that are acceptable to end users. Co-production with providers and stakeholders is increasingly positioned as the gold standard for improving uptake, engagement, and healthcare outcomes. Nevertheless, clear guidance around the process of co-production is lacking. The objectives of this review were to: (i) present an overview of the methods and approaches to co-production when designing, producing, and evaluating digital mental health interventions; and (ii) explore the barriers and facilitators affecting co-production in this context.

Methods

A pre-registered (CRD42023414007) systematic review was completed in accordance with The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Five databases were searched. A co-produced bespoke quality appraisal tool was developed with an expert by experience to assess the quality of the co-production methods and approaches. A narrative synthesis was conducted.

Results

Twenty-six studies across 24 digital mental health interventions met inclusion criteria. App interventions were rarely co-produced with end users throughout all stages of design, development, and evaluation. Co-producing digital mental health interventions added value by creating culturally sensitive and acceptable interventions. Reported challenges included resource issues exacerbated by the digital nature of the intervention, variability across stakeholder suggestions, and power imbalances between stakeholders and researchers.

Conclusions

Variation in approaches to co-producing digital mental health interventions is evident, with inconsistencies between stakeholder groups involved, stage of involvement, stakeholders' roles and methods employed.

Putting co-creation into practice: lessons learned from developing a midwife-led quality improvement intervention

BACKGROUND

Integrating evidence-based midwifery practices improves healthcare quality for women and newborns, but an evidence-to-practice gap exists. Co-created quality improvement initiatives led by midwives could bridge this gap, prevent resource waste and ensure intervention relevance. However, how to co-create a midwife-led quality improvement intervention has not been scientifically explored.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to describe the co-creation process and explore the needs and determinants of a midwife-led quality improvement targeting evidence-based midwifery practices.

METHODS

A qualitative deductive approach using the Consolidated Framework for Advancing Implementation Science was employed. An analysis matrix based on the framework was developed, and the data were coded according to categories. Data were gathered from interviews, focus group discussions, observations and workshops. New mothers and birth companions (n = 19) were included through convenience sampling. Midwives (n = 26), professional association representatives, educators, policymakers, managers, and doctors (n = 7) were purposely sampled.

RESULTS

The co-creation process of the midwife-led Quality Improvement intervention took place in four stages. Firstly, core elements of the intervention were established, featuring a group of midwife champions leading a quality improvement initiative using a train-the-trainers approach. Secondly, the intervention needs, context and determinants were explored, which showed knowledge and skills gaps, a lack of shared goals among staff, and limited resources. However, there was clear relevance, compatibility, and mission alignment for a midwife-led quality improvement at all levels. Thirdly, during co-creation workshops with new mothers and companions, the consensus was to prioritise improved intrapartum support, while workshops with midwives identified enhancing the use of birth positions and perineal protection as key focus areas for the forthcoming Quality Improvement intervention. Lastly, the findings guided intervention strategies, including peer-assisted learning, using existing structures, developing educational material, and building stakeholder relationships.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a practical example of a co-creation process for a midwife-led quality improvement intervention, which can be relevant in different maternity care settings.

Tackling diet inequalities in the UK food system: is food insecurity driving the obesity epidemic? (The FIO Food project)

By 2050 the number of adults living with obesity in the UK will rise with approximately one in four in the adult population. This rising trend is not equitable, with higher prevalence in socially disadvantaged groups. There is an apparent paradox of not being able to provide food for the family to eat, a feature of food insecurity and living with obesity. With the current cost-of-living crisis, there is a challenge to afford both food and fuel bills. Environmentally sustainable and healthy diets are proposed to improve public health and reduce the impact of the food system on the environment, while also improving diet quality. However, healthier foods tend to be nearly three times more expensive than unhealthy foods, and this provides a challenge for citizens on low incomes. In this review, we explore some of the evidence for solutions in the retail food environment to support the UK food system to be safe, nutritious, environmentally friendly and fair for all. We highlight the value of co-production in research, to give value and power to the lived experience to address these inequalities. Our multidisciplinary research approach within the FIO Food research grant will generate new insights into modifiable and potentially impactful changes to the UK food system, specifically for the retail food sector. We believe that the co-creation, design and delivery of research with those living with obesity and food insecurity will help to transform the UK food system for health and the environment in this vulnerable group.

'Building bridges': reflections and recommendations for co-producing health research

BACKGROUND

Co-produced research is when all stakeholders, including experts by experience and researchers, work together to conceptualise, design, deliver and disseminate research to enhance understanding and knowledge. This type of participatory inquiry is being increasingly used across health research; however, it continues to be a complex area to navigate given existing institutional structures.

MAIN BODY

We collaborated across three independent co-produced research studies to share insights, reflections, and knowledge of our work in the fields of HIV, mental health, and disability research. We co-designed and delivered a three-hour online workshop at a conference to share these reflections using the metaphor of 'building bridges' to describe our co-production journey. We generated key principles of co-production from our different experiences working in each individual research project as well as together across the three projects. Our principles are to: (1) be kind, have fun and learn from each other; (2) share power (as much as you can with people); (3) connect with people you know and don't know; (4) remain connected; and (5) use clear and simple language.

CONCLUSION

We recommend that co-produced research needs additional funding, resource, and flexibility to remain impactful and ethical. Co-produced research teams need to be mindful of traditional power structures and ensure that the process is transparent, fair, and ethical. Addressing equality, diversity, and inclusion of traditionally underrepresented groups in research is essential as are the skills, expertise, and experiences of all members of the co-production team.

A virtuous cycle of co-production: Reflections from a community priority-setting exercise

INTRODUCTION

Co-production is gaining increasing recognition as a good way of facilitating collaboration among different stakeholders, including members of the public. However, it remains an ambiguous concept as there is no definitive or universal model of co-production or clarity on what constitutes a good co-production approach. This paper draws on the reflections of the academic researchers, practitioners and public advisors involved in co-producing a priority-setting exercise. The exercise was conducted by the Primary and Community Health Services (PCHS) Theme of the National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration for Kent, Surrey and Sussex (NIHR ARC KSS).

METHODS

We collected data through written and verbal reflections from seven collaborators involved in the PCHS priority-setting exercise. We used Gibbs' model of reflection to guide the data collection. We then analysed the data through an inductive, reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

A common thread through our reflections was the concept of 'sharing'. Although co-production is inherently shared, we used the virtuous cycle to illustrate a sequence of sharing concepts during the research cycle, which provides the underpinnings of positive co-production outcomes. We identified six themes to denote the iterative process of a shared approach within the virtuous cycle: shared values, shared understanding, shared power, shared responsibilities, shared ownership and positive outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Our results present a virtuous cycle of co-production, which furthers the conceptual underpinnings of co-production. Through our reflections, we propose that positive co-production outcomes require foundations of shared values and a shared understanding of co-production as a concept. These foundations facilitate a process of shared power, shared responsibilities and shared ownership. We argue that when these elements are present in a co-production exercise, there is a greater potential for implementable outcomes in the communities in which the research serves and the empowerment of collaborators involved in the co-production process.

PUBLIC MEMBERS' CONTRIBUTIONS

Three members of the public who are public advisors in the NIHR ARC KSS were involved in the priority-setting exercise that informed this paper. The public advisors were involved in the design of the priority-setting exercise and supported participants' recruitment. They also co-facilitated the focus groups during data collection and were involved in the data analysis, interpretation and preparation of the priority-setting report. For this current manuscript, two of them are co-authors. They provided reflections and contributed to the writing and reviewing of this manuscript.

Development of Quality Indicators for Geriatric Home Enteral Nutrition (HEN) Services

The evidence on the safety, efficacy and patient centeredness of Home Enteral Nutrition (HEN) services is scarce. In 2015, we carried out a search of the literature to identify specific indicators for HEN services as tools to be used to assess the quality of INRCA HEN services. No specific indicators for HEN services were found. Through a subsequent search of the literature, we have identified the appropriate methodology to define quality indicators and developed eight (8) specific indicators to track the quality of our HEN service for geriatric patients. Following Donabiedan's classification, we have defined two structure indicators, two process indicators and four outcome indicators that are presented in this manuscript. Though they may be used to make a comparison of HEN services for geriatric patients and to monitor the quality of therapy provided at patients' homes, the definition of quality system indicators for HEN services requires the additional joint efforts of experts in the field of nutrition and the scientific community for their validation.

Evidencing the Impact of Web-Based Coproduction With Youth on Mental Health Research: Qualitative Findings From the MindKind Study

BACKGROUND

Public involvement in research is a growing phenomenon as well as a condition of research funding, and it is often referred to as coproduction. Coproduction involves stakeholder contributions at every stage of research, but different processes exist. However, the impact of coproduction on research is not well understood. Web-based young people's advisory groups (YPAGs) were established as part of the MindKind study at 3 sites (India, South Africa, and the United Kingdom) to coproduce the wider research study. Each group site, led by a professional youth advisor, conducted all youth coproduction activities collaboratively with other research staff.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of youth coproduction in the MindKind study.

METHODS

To measure the impact of web-based youth coproduction on all stakeholders, the following methods were used: analysis of project documents, capturing the views of stakeholders using the Most Significant Change technique, and impact frameworks to assess the impact of youth coproduction on specific stakeholder outcomes. Data were analyzed in collaboration with researchers, advisors, and YPAG members to explore the impact of youth coproduction on research.

RESULTS

The impact was recorded on 5 levels. First, at the paradigmatic level, a novel method of conducting research allowed for a widely diverse group of YPAG representations, influencing study priorities, conceptualization, and design. Second, at the infrastructural level, the YPAG and youth advisors meaningfully contributed to the dissemination of materials; infrastructural constraints of undertaking coproduction were also identified. Third, at the organizational level, coproduction necessitated implementing new communication practices, such as a web-based shared platform. This meant that materials were easily accessible to the whole team and communication streams remained consistent. Fourth, at the group level, authentic relationships developed between the YPAG members, advisors, and the rest of the team, facilitated by regular web-based contact. Finally, at the individual level, participants reported enhanced insights into mental well-being and appreciation for the opportunity to engage in research.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed several factors that shape the creation of web-based coproduction, with clear positive outcomes for advisors, YPAG members, researchers, and other project staff. However, several challenges of coproduced research were also encountered in multiple contexts and amid pressing timelines. For systematic reporting of the impact of youth coproduction, we propose that monitoring, evaluation, and learning systems be designed and implemented early.

"Take a walk in someone else's shoes": the role of participatory arts for health research development and training

Participatory arts are increasingly recognised as a valuable and accessible mechanism for giving a voice to the experiences of individuals' health and healthcare. In recent years, there has been a move towards embedding participatory arts-based models into public engagement processes. Here, we contribute to the existing literature on the use of participatory arts-based approaches and their role in health research and healthcare practise, focusing on two interlinked approaches, the creation of personas and storytelling. We draw on two recent projects which have utilised these approaches to inform subsequent healthcare research and as a professional training tool to improve patient experience in a healthcare setting. We add to emerging literature to outline the benefits of these approaches in supporting research and training in healthcare settings, with a focus towards the co-produced foundations of these approaches. We demonstrate how such approaches can be utilised to capture different forms of voices, experiences and perspectives to help inform healthcare research and training, rooted in the lived experience of individuals who are directly involved in the creative process of developing personas via storytelling. These approaches challenge the listener to "walk in someone else's shoes", using their own homes and lives as a theatrical set in which to envisage someone else's story, involving the listener in the creative process through (re)imagining the stories and experiences of the characters. Greater use of immersive, co-produced participatory art-based approaches should be used in PPIE to inform research and training in healthcare settings as a means of centring those with lived experience through co-production. Involving those with lived experience, particularly from groups who are traditionally excluded from research, via a process which is based on co-creation and co-production, reorientates the researcher-participant dynamic to fully centre those involved in the research at the heart of the tools used to guide health and healthcare research. In this way, it may also aid in trust and relationship building between institutions and communities in a way which is focused around positive, creative methods to aid health research and healthcare processes. Such approaches may help to break down barriers between academic institutions, healthcare sites and communities.

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

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.

Nothing about us without us: A co-production strategy for communities, researchers and stakeholders to identify ways of improving health and reducing inequalities

INTRODUCTION

Co-production with communities is increasingly seen as best practice that can improve the quality, relevance and effectiveness of research and service delivery. Despite this promising position, there remains uncertainty around definitions of co-production and how to operationalize it. The current paper describes the development of a co-production strategy to guide the work of the ActEarly multistakeholder preventative research programme to improve children's health in Bradford and Tower Hamlets, UK.

METHODS

The strategy used Appreciative Inquiry (AI), an approach following a five-step iterative process: to define (Step 1) scope and guide progress; to discover (Step 2) key issues through seven focus groups (N = 36) and eight in-depth interviews with key stakeholders representing community groups, and the voluntary and statutory sectors; to dream (Step 3) best practice through two workshops with AI participants to review findings; to design (Step 4) a co-production strategy building on AI findings and to deliver (Step 5) the practical guidance in the strategy.

RESULTS

Nine principles for how to do co-production well were identified: power should be shared; embrace a wide range of perspectives and skills; respect and value the lived experience; benefits should be for all involved parties; go to communities and do not expect them to come to you; work flexibly; avoid jargon and ensure availability of the right information; relationships should be built for the long-term; co-production activities should be adequately resourced. These principles were based on three underlying values of equality, reciprocity and agency.

CONCLUSION

The empirical insights of the paper highlight the crucial importance of adequate resources and infrastructure to deliver effective co-production. This documentation of one approach to operationalizing co-production serves to avert any misappropriations of the term 'co-production' by listening to service users, stakeholders and other relevant groups, to develop trust and long-term relationships, and build on the learning that already exists amongst such groups.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The work was overseen by a steering group (N = 17) of individuals, both professional and members of the public with experience in undertaking co-production, and/or with some knowledge of the context of the two ActEarly field sites, who provided regular oversight and feedback on the AI process.

"We know that our voices are valued, and that people are actually going to listen": co-producing an evaluation of a young people's research advisory group

BACKGROUND

Children and young people's (CYP) involvement is an increasing priority in UK healthcare and in heath research, alongside recognition that involving CYP in research requires different considerations to involving adults. Underpinned by children's rights and a co-production ethos this paper, co-authored with young evaluators, explores the learning from a co-produced evaluation of eyeYPAG, a young persons' research advisory group (YPAG) for eye and vision research based at Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, UK.

METHODS

A team of young evaluators, supported by the eyeYPAG facilitator, conducted focus groups and online surveys with YPAG members, their parents and carers, researchers, group facilitators and funders. Qualitative data was analysed using a collaborative reflexive thematic analysis approach. Quantitative data, limited by the small number of participants, was analysed in Excel and reported as descriptive data.

RESULTS

CYP valued the social and creative aspects of the group as well as learning about research and developing skills and confidence. Learning was a two-way process, with both researchers and facilitators reflecting on how much they had learnt from working with the YPAG. All participants talked about the importance of impact, feeling that CYP are making a difference to research, as well as CYP's right to be involved. Effective planning and facilitation were key to the success of the group, in relation to accessibility and the development and delivery of sessions both online and in-person. Resourcing and administration were key challenges to this, as was engaging researchers who were not already converted to the public involvement cause. As the nature of a YPAG is that it primarily focuses on advising researcher-led projects, co-production was identified as something that the group was 'working towards', including through this evaluation. Co-producing with CYP involves building up knowledge, confidence and acknowledging power dynamics.

CONCLUSIONS

Co-producing an evaluation enabled us to learn about the benefits and challenges of involving CYP in research, as well as how to involve them in the development of that evidence. An ethos of co-production and children's rights helped to shift the balance of power and develop more engaging and inclusive ways of working.

Leading co-production in five UK collaborative research partnerships (2008-2018): responses to four tensions from senior leaders using auto-ethnography

BACKGROUND

Despite growing enthusiasm for co-production in healthcare services and research, research on co-production practices is lacking. Multiple frameworks, guidelines and principles are available but little empirical research is conducted on 'how to do' co-production of research to improve healthcare services. This paper brings together insights from UK-based collaborative research partnerships on leading co-production. Its aim is to inform practical guidance for new partnerships planning to facilitate the co-production of applied health research in the future.

METHODS

Using an auto-ethnographic approach, experiential evidence was elicited through collective sense making from recorded conversations between the research team and senior leaders of five UK-based collaborative research partnerships. This approach applies a cultural analysis and interpretation of the leaders' behaviours, thoughts and experiences of co-production taking place in 2008-2018 and involving academics, health practitioners, policy makers and representatives of third sector organisations.

RESULTS

The findings highlight a variety of practices across CLAHRCs, whereby the intersection between the senior leaders' vision and local organisational context in which co-production occurs largely determines the nature of co-production process and outcomes. We identified four tensions in doing co-production: (1) idealistic, tokenistic vs realistic narratives, (2) power differences and (lack of) reciprocity, (3) excluding vs including language and communication, (4) individual motivation vs structural issues.

CONCLUSIONS

The tensions were productive in helping collaborative research partnerships to tailor co-production practices to their local needs and opportunities. Resulting variation in co-production practices across partnerships can therefore be seen as highly advantageous creative adaptation, which makes us question the utility of seeking a unified 'gold standard' of co-production. Strategic leadership is an important starting point for finding context-tailored solutions; however, development of more distributed forms of leadership over time is needed to facilitate co-production practices between partners. Facilitating structures for co-production can enable power sharing and boost capacity and capability building, resulting in more inclusive language and communication and, ultimately, more credible practices of co-production in research. We provide recommendations for creating more realistic narratives around co-production and facilitating power sharing between partners.

Describing the evidence-base for research engagement by health care providers and health care organisations: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Having a research-engaged health and medical workforce is associated with improvements in clinical outcomes for patients. As such, there has been significant government investment internationally to support health care organisations and services to increase staff engagement with research.

OBJECTIVES

This scoping review sought to provide an overview of the literature describing strategies employed to increase research engagement by health care providers and organisations, and to undertake a qualitative analysis to generate a list of research engagement strategies.

METHODS

A scoping review using systematic search strategies was undertaken to locate peer-review publications and grey literature related to research engagement by health care providers and organisations. Research engagement was defined as a 'deliberate set of intellectual and practical activities undertaken by health care staff and organisations to conduct research'. A database search of electronic records was performed with no limit on publication date. Publications were included regardless of study type (excluding systematic reviews) and categorised as either databased (presenting data or new analysis of existing data) and non-databased (no new data or analyses). Databased publications were further classified according to study type, study design and setting. A qualitative synthesis using a Framework Approach was undertaken with all studies that described a strategy to improve research engagement.

RESULTS

A total of 152 publications were included in this study with 54% categorised as non-databased. Of the databased articles, the majority (72%) were descriptive studies describing prevalence of correlates of research engagement, 17 (25%) described intervention studies where only two were controlled studies. The following research engagement strategies were identified: i) dual skilled team/staff, ii) resources or physical infrastructure, iii) incentives, iv) leadership support of research, v) education/training, vi) networks, vii) forming partnerships or collaborations and viii) overall leadership structure of entity.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature on research engagement is primarily opinion-based and descriptive in nature. To provide the evidence needed to inform strategies, this needs to progress beyond descriptive to more rigorous well-designed intervention research.

Approaches to co-production of research in care homes: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Using the technique of co-production to develop research is considered good practice. Co-production involves the public, practitioners and academics working together as equals throughout a research project. Co-production may help develop alternative ways of delivering care for older adults that are acceptable to those who live and work in care homes. However, guidance about applying co-production approaches in this context is lacking. This scoping review aims to map co-production approaches used in care homes for older adults in previous research to support the inclusion of residents and care staff as equal collaborators in future studies.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology. Seven electronic databases were searched for peer-reviewed primary studies using co-production approaches in care home settings for older adults. Studies were independently screened against eligibility criteria by two reviewers. Citation searching was completed. Data relating to study characteristics, co-production approaches used, including any barriers and facilitators, was charted by one reviewer and checked by another. Data was summarised using tables and diagrams with an accompanying narrative description. A collaborator group of care home and health service representatives were involved in the interpretation of the findings from their perspectives.

RESULTS

19 studies were selected for inclusion. A diverse range of approaches to co-production and engaging key stakeholders in care home settings were identified. 11 studies reported barriers and 13 reported facilitators affecting the co-production process. Barriers and facilitators to building relationships and achieving inclusive, equitable and reciprocal co-production were identified in alignment with the five NIHR principles. Practical considerations were also identified as potential barriers and facilitators.

CONCLUSION

The components of co-production approaches, barriers and facilitators identified should inform the design of future research using co-production approaches in care homes. Future studies should be explicit in reporting what is meant by co-production, the methods used to support co-production, and steps taken to enact the principles of co-production. Sharing of key learning is required to support this field to develop. Evaluation of co-production approaches, including participants' experiences of taking part in co-production processes, are areas for future research in care home settings.

Trauma-informed patient and public-engaged research: Development and evaluation of an online training programme

INTRODUCTION

As patients, members of the public, and professional stakeholders engage in co-producing health-related research, an important issue to consider is trauma. Trauma is very common and associated with a wide range of physical and behavioural health conditions. Thus, it may benefit research partnerships to consider its impact on their stakeholders as well as its relevance to the health condition under study. The aims of this article are to describe the development and evaluation of a training programme that applied principles of trauma-informed care (TIC) to patient- and public-engaged research.

METHODS

A research partnership focused on addressing trauma in primary care patients ('myPATH') explicitly incorporated TIC into its formation, governance document and collaborative processes, and developed and evaluated a free 3-credit continuing education online training. The training was presented by 11 partners (5 professionals, 6 patients) and included academic content and lived experiences.

RESULTS

Training participants (N = 46) positively rated achievement of learning objectives and speakers' performance (ranging from 4.39 to 4.74 on a 5-point scale). The most salient themes from open-ended comments were that training was informative (n = 12) and that lived experiences shared by patient partners were impactful (n = 10). Suggestions were primarily technical or logistical.

CONCLUSION

This preliminary evaluation indicates that it is possible to incorporate TIC principles into a research partnership's collaborative processes and training about these topics is well-received. Learning about trauma and TIC may benefit research partnerships that involve patients and public stakeholders studying a wide range of health conditions, potentially improving how stakeholders engage in co-producing research as well as producing research that addresses how trauma relates to their health condition under study.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The myPATH Partnership includes 22 individuals with professional and lived experiences related to trauma (https://www.usf.edu/cbcs/mhlp/centers/mypath/); nine partners were engaged due to personal experiences with trauma; other partners are community-based providers and researchers. All partners contributed ideas that led to trauma-informed research strategies and training. Eleven partners (5 professionals, 6 patients) presented the training, and 12 partners (8 professionals, 4 patients) contributed to this article and chose to be named as authors.

Evaluating the role and effectiveness of co-produced community-based mental health interventions that aim to reduce suicide among adults: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Suicide is a major public health risk requiring targeted suicide prevention interventions. The principles of co-production are compatible with tailoring suicide prevention interventions to meet an individual's needs.

AIMS

This review aimed to evaluate the role and effectiveness of co-produced community-based suicide prevention interventions among adults.

METHODS

Four electronic databases (PsycInfo, CINAHL, MEDLINE and web of science) were systematically searched. A narrative synthesis was conducted.

RESULTS

From 590 papers identified through searches, 14 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Most included studies elicited the views and perspectives of stakeholders in a process of co-design/co-creation of community-based suicide prevention interventions.

CONCLUSION

Stakeholder involvement in the creation of community-based suicide prevention interventions may improve engagement and give voice to those experiencing suicidal crisis. However, there is limited evaluation extending beyond the design of these interventions. Further research is needed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of co-produced community-based suicide prevention interventions.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

This paper is a systematic review and did not directly involve patients and/or the public. However, the findings incorporate the views and perspectives of stakeholders as reported within the studies included in this review, and the findings may inform the future involvement of stakeholders in the design, development and delivery of community-based suicide prevention interventions for adults.