Coproduction and cost efficiency: a structured literature review

Abstract

Purpose Coproduction is both a recurrent way of organizing public services and a maturing academic field. The academic debate has analyzed several facets, but one deserves further analysis: its impact on the cost efficiency of public services. The purpose of this paper is to aim at systematizing the findings on the relationship between coproduction and cost efficiency and at developing insights for future research. Design/methodology/approach This paper is based on a structured literature review (SLR), following the approach proposed by Massaro, Dumay and Guthrie. The SLR approach differs from traditional narrative reviews since, like other meta-analysis methods, it adopts a replicable and transparent process. At the same time, when compared to most common meta-analysis or systematic review logics, it is better suited to incorporate evidence from case studies and etnographies. This makes the method especially suited to public administration and management studies. Findings Results shed light on the nature of the academic literature relating coproduction to cost efficiency, on what type of costs are affected and how and on the meaningfulness of productivity measures when public services are co-produced. Originality/value In times of fiscal distress for many governments, the paper contributes to research and practice in systematically re-assessing the effects of coproduction on public budgets.

Mapping definitions of co‐production and co‐design in health and social care: A systematic scoping review providing lessons for the future

“…At first sight, it may seem that adequate consideration has been given to such issues; yet, there remains a lack of clarity on the meaning of co‐production and co‐design in the specific context of health and social care. To illustrate this, published reviews refer to over 30 separate definitions for co‐production and related concepts in relation to healthcare, 15 acute healthcare, 16 public care services, 17 management, 18 information and communication technologies 19,20 as well as proposed benefits of co‐production such as communication 21 and cost‐efficiency 22 . There have also been reviews exploring co‐production within specific populations as well as associated concepts such as community engagement, 23 shared decision‐making, 24 parental engagement, 25 user involvement, 26 patient involvement, 27 patient and public involvement, 28 patient engagement, 29 patient advisors and patient engagement 30 and patients as coresearchers 31 .…”

“…To illustrate this, published reviews refer to over 30 separate definitions for co‐production and related concepts in relation to healthcare, 15 acute healthcare, 16 public care services, 17 management, 18 information and communication technologies 19 , 20 as well as proposed benefits of co‐production such as communication 21 and cost‐efficiency. 22 There have also been reviews exploring co‐production within specific populations as well as associated concepts such as community engagement, 23 shared decision‐making, 24 parental engagement, 25 user involvement, 26 patient involvement, 27 patient and public involvement, 28 patient engagement, 29 patient advisors and patient engagement 30 and patients as coresearchers. 31 As noted by Locock and Boaz, 32 there is a ‘crowded landscape’ of definitions and various approaches alongside an ongoing debate as to what counts as meaningful involvement.…”

Healthy Living and Co-Production: Evaluation of Processes and Outcomes of a Health Promotion Initiative Co-Produced with Adolescents

“…Its effectiveness was related both to outputs, such as empowering adolescents as agents of change, and outcomes, such as reaching a very high number of peers, activating a potential viral effect, and freeing up public resources. Considering that few studies have been published on the impact of co-production [59,66], this paper fills in this gap by providing the results of an evaluation performed at different levels (determinants, intermediate results, and final results) and for different stakeholders (the organization/provider, the participant people, and the wider community), with a specific focus on obesity prevention in adolescence by means of lifestyle promotion.…”

“…Given the lack of evaluations of public co-production initiatives, scholars have called for more empirical research [58] that also considers the costs and challenges of co-production in relation to traditional initiatives [65]. In fact, on the practical side, research on the direct and indirect costs of co-production is still needed [66]. The research agenda on public co-production suggests moving the discussion from the co-production process alone to the evaluation of its outcomes in terms of cost-effectiveness, services' quality improvement, impacts, and value produced to different stakeholders [58,59,62,63].…”

“A little bit of everything?” Conceptualising performance measurement in hybrid public sector organisations through a literature review

“…Literature reviews include a research protocol for the retrieval and selection of original scientific articles and the evaluation of their quality, as well as their analysis and presentation (Garlatti et al, 2020;Santis et al, 2018). Reviews have been established as reliable and valid means of summarising prior research findings (Denyer and Tranfield 2009;Fink, 2019; Manes Hybridity and organisational performance Rossi et al, 2020).…”