Co-production of a research and advocacy agenda for Inclusion Health

Luchenski, Serena; Edge, Chantal; Hutchinson-Pascal, Niccola; Sultan, Binta; Black, Georgia; Burridge, Stan; Johnson, Luke R.; Palipane, Natasha; Rosenthal, Diana Margot; Fairhead, Cassandra; King, Emma; Lewer, Dan; Dibley, Velvet; Khan, Zana; Collinson, Lucie; Pathak, Neha; Story, Alistair; Hayward, Andrew

doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(19)32865-x

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Where it was possible to discern how the concepts were enacted, the type of methods reported in papers describing co-production or co-design included individual interviews, group workshops, reflection and discussion meetings, focus group discussions, social media forums, surveys, or a mix of these activities [ 47 , 48 , 52 , 55 , 62 , 63 , 84 ] (see Table 2 ). While some papers described specific activities and participatory approaches used in co-design or co-production workshops or meetings [ 25 , 30 , 70 , 72 , 104 ], most did not elaborate on their methods.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many of the papers concerned with co-produced applied health research highlighted the need for future research to focus on better ways of involving more diverse groups of service users and stakeholders [ 31 , 63 , 68 – 72 , 80 , 95 , 98 ]. There were suggestions for research to focus on understanding how to involve different groups and facilitate effective involvement [ 54 , 77 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Smith¹,

Budworth²,

Grindey³

et al. 2022

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Interest in and use of co-production in healthcare services and research is growing. Previous reviews have summarized co-production approaches in use, collated outcomes and effects of co-production, and focused on replicability and reporting, but none have critically reflected on how co-production in applied health research might be evolving and the implications of this for future research. We conducted this scoping review to systematically map recent literature on co-production in applied health research in the United Kingdom to inform co-production practice and guide future methodological research. Methods This scoping review was performed using established methods. We created an evidence map to show the extent and nature of the literature on co-production and applied health research, based on which we described the characteristics of the articles and scope of the literature and summarized conceptualizations of co-production and how it was implemented. We extracted implications for co-production practice or future research and conducted a content analysis of this information to identify lessons for the practice of co-production and themes for future methodological research. Results Nineteen articles reporting co-produced complex interventions and 64 reporting co-production in applied health research met the inclusion criteria. Lessons for the practice of co-production and requirements for co-production to become more embedded in organizational structures included (1) the capacity to implement co-produced interventions, (2) the skill set needed for co-production, (3) multiple levels of engagement and negotiation, and (4) funding and institutional arrangements for meaningful co-production. Themes for future research on co-production included (1) who to involve in co-production and how, (2) evaluating outcomes of co-production, (3) the language and practice of co-production, (4) documenting costs and challenges, and (5) vital components or best practice for co-production. Conclusion Researchers are operationalizing co-production in various ways, often without the necessary financial and organizational support required and the right conditions for success. We argue for accepting the diversity in approaches to co-production, call on researchers to be clearer in their reporting of these approaches, and make suggestions for what researchers should record. To support co-production of research, changes to entrenched academic and scientific practices are needed. Protocol registration details: The protocol for the scoping review was registered with protocols.io on 19 October 2021: https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.by7epzje.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Smith¹,

Budworth²,

Grindey³

et al. 2022

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Challenges include the paucity of examples of co-production around population-level policy and practice interventions, with co-production processes often focussing on single communities and not on policy change [42][43][44]. Co-production across sectors for zoonotic/communicable diseases also revolve primarily around prioritisation of diseases and research agendas, rather than longer term cooperation to co-develop and operationalise particular interventions or research studies [45,46]. Whilst some studies have highlighted the advantages of integrating stakeholder knowledge on key risk factors into epidemiological models to inform interventions [38], no studies have explored the approach of cross-sectoral and multi-scalar co-production in the development of understanding of risk factors, predictive models for zoonoses and control interventions.…”

Section: Plos Global Public Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-production of knowledge as part of a OneHealth approach to better control zoonotic diseases

Asaaga

Young

Srinivas

et al. 2022

PLOS Glob Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is increased global and national attention on the need for effective strategies to control zoonotic diseases. Quick, effective action is, however, hampered by poor evidence-bases and limited coordination between stakeholders from relevant sectors such as public and animal health, wildlife and forestry sectors at different scales, who may not usually work together. The OneHealth approach recognises the value of cross-sectoral evaluation of human, animal and environmental health questions in an integrated, holistic and transdisciplinary manner to reduce disease impacts and/or mitigate risks. Co-production of knowledge is also widely advocated to improve the quality and acceptability of decision-making across sectors and may be particularly important when it comes to zoonoses. This paper brings together OneHealth and knowledge co-production and reflects on lessons learned for future OneHealth co-production processes by describing a process implemented to understand spill-over and identify disease control and mitigation strategies for a zoonotic disease in Southern India (Kyasanur Forest Disease). The co-production process aimed to develop a joint decision-support tool with stakeholders, and we complemented our approach with a simple retrospective theory of change on researcher expectations of the system-level outcomes of the co-production process. Our results highlight that while co-production in OneHealth is a difficult and resource intensive process, requiring regular iterative adjustments and flexibility, the beneficial outcomes justify its adoption. A key future aim should be to improve and evaluate the degree of inter-sectoral collaboration required to achieve the aims of OneHealth. We conclude by providing guidelines based on our experience to help funders and decision-makers support future co-production processes.

show abstract

“…They also tend to seek care late, once health issues become emergencies, in part because the efforts involved in meeting basic needs such as food, water and shelter take priority 14 . Despite recognition of the barriers faced by this group, we could not find any examples of co‐design undertaken over a period of months with people who are sleeping rough in the refereed literature, as opposed to one‐off consultations or co‐design not directly involving the homeless 15,16 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…14 Despite recognition of the barriers faced by this group, we could not find any examples of codesign undertaken over a period of months with people who are sleeping rough in the refereed literature, as opposed to one-off consultations or co-design not directly involving the homeless. 15,16 The goal of this paper was to evaluate a project that used codesign principles to utilize the skills, knowledge and experiences of people with a current or recent experience of rough sleeping to identify some of the health, social and legal issues faced when sleeping rough and strategies to address them.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

‘No‐one has listened to anything I’ve got to say before’: Co‐design with people who are sleeping rough

Mullins

Kelly

Chiappalone

et al. 2021

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Despite policies and programmes aimed at housing people who are homeless, there are still people who live and sleep rough. This project used the skills and knowledge of people in this situation to identify a strategy to mitigate some of the risks. Objective To describe the development and conduct of a co‐design project involving people who are homeless. Setting/Group Members A Working Group of 11 was formed following a careful recruitment process from people who had volunteered after consultation by the project team. The co‐design approach was guided by a set of principles. Methods Eight members of the Working Group were interviewed by an external researcher (RM). The approach was primarily deductive, with the principles adopted by the project team used as a framework for data collection and analysis. The co‐design process was captured by the project leaders (BK, PC) supplemented with documentation review and team discussions. Results The group met weekly for 12 weeks, with 8‐10 members present on average. They reviewed information from the survey, contributed ideas for solutions and ultimately decided to provide information via print, a website and an event. Important factors in on‐going involvement were carefully selecting group members and making participation rewarding for them. Discussion/Conclusions Vulnerable people such as those experiencing homelessness can be excluded from decision‐making processes affecting them, as they can be perceived as hard to reach and unable to make a meaningful contribution. This project demonstrated that a carefully managed project, with sufficient resources and commitment, it was possible to involve people who are homeless and maintain involvement over an extended time period. Public Contribution The Working Group reviewed survey findings and developed an intervention to minimize the health, social and legal harms of sleeping rough. Several members reviewe this paper.

show abstract

Co-production of a research and advocacy agenda for Inclusion Health

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

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

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

Co-production of knowledge as part of a OneHealth approach to better control zoonotic diseases

‘No‐one has listened to anything I’ve got to say before’: Co‐design with people who are sleeping rough

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About