Policy Points: Co‐creation—collaborative knowledge generation by academics working alongside other stakeholders—is an increasingly popular approach to aligning research and service development.It has potential for “moving beyond the ivory towers” to deliver significant societal impact via dynamic, locally adaptive community‐academic partnerships.Principles of successful co‐creation include a systems perspective, a creative approach to research focused on improving human experience, and careful attention to governance and process.If these principles are not followed, co‐creation efforts may fail. ContextCo‐creation—collaborative knowledge generation by academics working alongside other stakeholders—reflects a “Mode 2” relationship (knowledge production rather than knowledge translation) between universities and society. Co‐creation is widely believed to increase research impact.MethodsWe undertook a narrative review of different models of co‐creation relevant to community‐based health services. We contrasted their diverse disciplinary roots and highlighted their common philosophical assumptions, principles of success, and explanations for failures. We applied these to an empirical case study of a community‐based research‐service partnership led by the Centre of Research Excellence in Quality and Safety in Integrated Primary‐Secondary Care at the University of Queensland, Australia.FindingsCo‐creation emerged independently in several fields, including business studies (“value co‐creation”), design science (“experience‐based co‐design”), computer science (“technology co‐design”), and community development (“participatory research”). These diverse models share some common features, which were also evident in the case study. Key success principles included (1) a systems perspective (assuming emergence, local adaptation, and nonlinearity); (2) the framing of research as a creative enterprise with human experience at its core; and (3) an emphasis on process (the framing of the program, the nature of relationships, and governance and facilitation arrangements, especially the style of leadership and how conflict is managed). In both the literature review and the case study, co‐creation “failures” could often be tracked back to abandoning (or never adopting) these principles. All co‐creation models made strong claims for significant and sustainable societal impacts as a result of the adaptive and developmental research process; these were illustrated in the case study.ConclusionsCo‐creation models have high potential for societal impact but depend critically on key success principles. To capture the nonlinear chains of causation in the co‐creation pathway, impact metrics must reflect the dynamic nature and complex interdependencies of health research systems and address processes as well as outcomes.

BackgroundInternationally, key health care reform elements rely on improved integration of care between the primary and secondary sectors. The objective of this systematic review is to synthesise the existing published literature on elements of current integrated primary/secondary health care. These elements and how they have supported integrated healthcare governance are presented.MethodsA systematic review of peer-reviewed literature from PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, Informit Health Collection, the Primary Health Care Research and Information Service, the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, European Foundation for Primary Care, European Forum for Primary Care, and Europa Sinapse was undertaken for the years 2006–2012. Relevant websites were also searched for grey literature. Papers were assessed by two assessors according to agreed inclusion criteria which were published in English, between 2006–2012, studies describing an integrated primary/secondary care model, and had reported outcomes in care quality, efficiency and/or satisfaction.ResultsTwenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. All studies evaluated the process of integrated governance and service delivery structures, rather than the effectiveness of services. They included case reports and qualitative data analyses addressing policy change, business issues and issues of clinical integration. A thematic synthesis approach organising data according to themes identified ten elements needed for integrated primary/secondary health care governance across a regional setting including: joint planning; integrated information communication technology; change management; shared clinical priorities; incentives; population focus; measurement – using data as a quality improvement tool; continuing professional development supporting joint working; patient/community engagement; and, innovation.ConclusionsAll examples of successful primary/secondary care integration reported in the literature have focused on a combination of some, if not all, of the ten elements described in this paper, and there appears to be agreement that multiple elements are required to ensure successful and sustained integration efforts. Whilst no one model fits all systems these elements provide a focus for setting up integration initiatives which need to be flexible for adapting to local conditions and settings.

BackgroundImplementation science research, especially when using participatory and co-design approaches, raises unique challenges for research ethics committees. Such challenges may be poorly addressed by approval and governance mechanisms that were developed for more traditional research approaches such as randomised controlled trials.DiscussionImplementation science commonly involves the partnership of researchers and stakeholders, attempting to understand and encourage uptake of completed or piloted research. A co-creation approach involves collaboration between researchers and end users from the onset, in question framing, research design and delivery, and influencing strategy, with implementation and broader dissemination strategies part of its design from gestation. A defining feature of co-creation is its emergent and adaptive nature, making detailed pre-specification of interventions and outcome measures impossible. This methodology sits oddly with ethics committee protocols that require precise pre-definition of interventions, mode of delivery, outcome measurements, and the role of study participants. But the strict (and, some would say, inflexible) requirements of ethics committees were developed for a purpose – to protect participants from harm and help ensure the rigour and transparency of studies. We propose some guiding principles to help square this circle. First, ethics committees should acknowledge and celebrate the diversity of research approaches, both formally (through training) and informally (by promoting debate and discussion); without active support, their members may not understand or value participatory designs. Second, ground rules should be established for co-design applications (e.g. how to judge when ‘consultation’ or ‘engagement’ becomes research) and communicated to committee members and stakeholders. Third, the benefits of power-sharing should be recognised and credit given to measures likely to support this important goal, especially in research with vulnerable communities. Co-design is considered best practice, for example, in research involving indigenous peoples in New Zealand, Australia and Canada.

Abstract.Integrated multidisciplinary care is difficult to achieve between specialist clinical services and primary care practitioners, but should improve outcomes for patients with chronic and/or complex chronic physical diseases. This systematic review identifies outcomes of different models that integrate specialist and primary care practitioners, and characteristics of models that delivered favourable clinical outcomes. For quality appraisal, the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used. Data are presented as a narrative synthesis due to marked heterogeneity in study outcomes. Ten studies were included. Publication bias cannot be ruled out. Despite few improvements in clinical outcomes, significant improvements were reported in process outcomes regarding disease control and service delivery. No study reported negative effects compared with usual care. Economic outcomes showed modest increases in costs of integrated primary-secondary care. Six elements were identified that were common to these models of integrated primary-secondary care: (1) interdisciplinary teamwork; (2) communication/information exchange; (3) shared care guidelines or pathways; (4) training and education; (5) access and acceptability for patients; and (6) a viable funding model. Compared with usual care, integrated primary-secondary care can improve elements of disease control and service delivery at a modestly increased cost, although the impact on clinical outcomes is limited. Future trials of integrated care should incorporate design elements likely to maximise effectiveness.

This trial compared the cost of an integrated home-based care model with traditional inpatient care for acute chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). 25 patients with acute COPD were randomised to either home or hospital management following request for hospital admission. The acute care at home group costs per separation ($745, n=13) were significantly lower (p<0.01) than the hospital group ($2543($ , CI95% $1766

Educational outreach as well as audit and feedback continue to dominate research into prescribing interventions. These 2 prescribing interventions also most consistently show positive results. Much less research is conducted into other types of interventions and there is still very little effort to systematically test why interventions do or do not work.

A community-based, integrated model of complex diabetes care, delivered by general practitioners with advanced skills, produced clinical and process benefits compared with a tertiary diabetes outpatient clinic.

The aim of this study was to identify the breastfeeding attitudes and knowledge of a sample of Australian general practice (GP) registrars and investigate how confident and effective they thought their interactions with breastfeeding women were. Between February and May 2007, a 90-item questionnaire containing demographic, attitude, and knowledge items was distributed to final-year Australian GP registrars. The mean attitude score (5 = maximum score) was 3.99. The mean knowledge score (5 = maximum score) was 3.40, indicating some degree of breastfeeding knowledge. However, 40% of the knowledge items were answered incorrectly by the majority of participants. Approximately 40% of the cohort were confident and thought they were effective assisting breastfeeding women. Having more than 26 weeks personal experience with breastfeeding (self or partner) increased breastfeeding knowledge, attitudes, confidence, and effectiveness. Further targeted training is needed to improve Australian GP registrars' breastfeeding knowledge, attitudes, confidence, and effectiveness.