2.2 Equity, Power, and Transformative Research Coproduction

Plamondon, Katrina; Ndumbe-Eyoh, Sume; Shahram, Sana

doi:10.1002/9781119757269.ch3

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To this end, numerous efforts have been made to articulate and classify the underlying principles and values conducive to co-production research [for example, see Hickey et al ( 29 ) and Gainforth et al ( 4 )]. Notable commonalties amongst these principles include the redistribution and sharing of power—where the research is jointly owned and people work together to achieve co-determined outcomes ( 4 , 29 , 30 ). This is accompanied by relationship building and maintenance to enable contribution with power sharing ( 1 , 3 , 27 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Plamondon et al ( 30 ) argue that power is the overarching and essential problem of research co-production. Not only is the research process (involving the systematic nature of knowledge enquiry) founded on human relationships, “power and positionalities shape who and what is seen, privileged, and legitimized as worthy of research and implementation attention and resources” (p. 37).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Shining a light on the road towards conducting principle-based co-production research in rehabilitation

Bourke,

Bragge,

River

et al. 2024

Front. Rehabil. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Moving from participatory approaches incorporating co-design to co-production in health research involves a commitment to full engagement and partnership with people with lived experience through all stages of the research process—start to finish. However, despite the increased enthusiasm and proliferation of research that involves co-production, practice remains challenging, due in part to the lack of consensus on what constitutes co-production, a lack of guidance about the practical steps of applying this approach in respect to diverse research methods from multiple paradigms, and structural barriers within academia research landscape. To navigate the challenges in conducting co-produced research, it has been recommended that attention be paid to focusing and operationalising the underpinning principles and aspirations of co-production research, to aid translation into practice. In this article, we describe some fundamental principles essential to conducting co-production research (sharing power, relational resilience, and adopting a learning mindset) and provide tangible, practical strategies, and processes to engage these values. In doing so, we hope to support rehabilitation researchers who wish to engage in co-production to foster a more equitable, ethical, and impactful collaboration with people with lived experience and those involved in their circle of care.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shining a light on the road towards conducting principle-based co-production research in rehabilitation

Bourke,

Bragge,

River

et al. 2024

Front. Rehabil. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Turning the tide on inequity through systematic equity action-analysis

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Collective agreement about the importance of centering equity in health research, practice, and policy is growing. Yet, responsibility for advancing equity is often situated as belonging to a vague group of ‘others’, or delegated to the leadership of ‘equity-seeking’ or ‘equity-deserving’ groups who are tasked to lead systems transformation while simultaneously navigating the violence and harms of oppression within those same systems. Equity efforts also often overlook the breadth of equity scholarship. Harnessing the potential of current interests in advancing equity requires systematic, evidence-guided, theoretically rigorous ways for people to embrace their own agency and influence over the systems in which they are situated. ln this article, we introduce and describe the Systematic Equity Action-Analysis (SEA) Framework as a tool that translates equity scholarship and evidence into a structured process that leaders, teams, and communities can use to advance equity in their own settings. Methods This framework was derived through a dialogic, critically reflective and scholarly process of integrating methodological insights garnered over years of equity-centred research and practice. Each author, in a variety of ways, brought engaged equity perspectives to the dialogue, bringing practical and lived experience to conversation and writing. Our scholarly dialogue was grounded in critical and relational lenses, and involved synthesis of theory and practice from a broad range of applications and cases. Results The SEA Framework balances practices of agency, humility, critically reflective dialogue, and systems thinking. The framework guides users through four elements of analysis (worldview, coherence, potential, and accountability) to systematically interrogate how and where equity is integrated in a setting or object of action-analysis. Because equity issues are present in virtually all aspects of society, the kinds of ‘things’ the framework could be applied to is only limited by the imagination of its users. It can inform retrospective or prospective work, by groups external to a policy or practice setting (e.g., using public documents to assess a research funding policy landscape); or internal to a system, policy, or practice setting (e.g., faculty engaging in a critically reflective examination of equity in the undergraduate program they deliver). Conclusions While not a panacea, this unique contribution to the science of health equity equips people to explicitly recognize and interrupt their own entanglements in the intersecting systems of oppression and injustice that produce and uphold inequities.

show abstract

Using the consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to integrate innovation recipients’ perspectives into the implementation of a digital version of the spinal cord injury health maintenance tool: a qualitative analysis

Bourke,

Jerram,

Arora

et al. 2024

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Despite advances in managing secondary health complications after spinal cord injury (SCI), challenges remain in developing targeted community health strategies. In response, the SCI Health Maintenance Tool (SCI-HMT) was developed between 2018 and 2023 in NSW, Australia to support people with SCI and their general practitioners (GPs) to promote better community self-management. Successful implementation of innovations such as the SCI-HMT are determined by a range of contextual factors, including the perspectives of the innovation recipients for whom the innovation is intended to benefit, who are rarely included in the implementation process. During the digitizing of the booklet version of the SCI-HMT into a website and App, we used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) as a tool to guide collection and analysis of qualitative data from a range of innovation recipients to promote equity and to inform actionable findings designed to improve the implementation of the SCI-HMT. Methods Data from twenty-three innovation recipients in the development phase of the SCI-HMT were coded to the five CFIR domains to inform a semi-structured interview guide. This interview guide was used to prospectively explore the barriers and facilitators to planned implementation of the digital SCI-HMT with six health professionals and four people with SCI. A team including researchers and innovation recipients then interpreted these data to produce a reflective statement matched to each domain. Each reflective statement prefaced an actionable finding, defined as alterations that can be made to a program to improve its adoption into practice. Results Five reflective statements synthesizing all participant data and linked to an actionable finding to improve the implementation plan were created. Using the CFIR to guide our research emphasized how partnership is the key theme connecting all implementation facilitators, for example ensuring that the tone, scope, content and presentation of the SCI-HMT balanced the needs of innovation recipients alongside the provision of evidence-based clinical information. Conclusions Understanding recipient perspectives is an essential contextual factor to consider when developing implementation strategies for healthcare innovations. The revised CFIR provided an effective, systematic method to understand, integrate and value recipient perspectives in the development of an implementation strategy for the SCI-HMT. Trial registration N/A.

show abstract

2.2 Equity, Power, and Transformative Research Coproduction

Cited by 4 publications

References 25 publications

Shining a light on the road towards conducting principle-based co-production research in rehabilitation

Shining a light on the road towards conducting principle-based co-production research in rehabilitation

Turning the tide on inequity through systematic equity action-analysis

Using the consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to integrate innovation recipients’ perspectives into the implementation of a digital version of the spinal cord injury health maintenance tool: a qualitative analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About