Health and Wellbeing. Challenging Co-Design for Difficult Conversations, Successes and Failures of the Leapfrog Approach

Whitham, Roger; Cruickshank, Leon; Coupe, Gemma; Wareing, Laura; Pérez, David

doi:10.1080/14606925.2019.1595439

Cited by 4 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 8 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. In studies describing intervention development or evaluation, we looked for reference to principles of co-production or co-design (defined by the NIHR 1 ) and how they were enacted.…”

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

“…It examines the value of collaboration and its impact upon participants within an action research project conducted in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. The project, called ‘Tackling Loneliness and Isolation’, formed part of a larger research project called ‘Leapfrog’ (Calvo 2019; Whitham et al 2019; Broadley & Smith 2018; Mcara et al 2018). The Leapfrog Project (see httpp:// leapfrog.tools) deployed co‐design to ‘transform public sector engagement through design’.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Creating Spaces for Collaboration in Community Co‐design

Calvo¹,

Sclater²

2021

Int J Art Design Ed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urgent societal challenges have led to unease in our socio‐cultural interactions and the production systems that underpin our lives. To confront such challenges, collaboration stands out as an essential approach in accomplishing joint goals and producing new knowledge. It calls for interdisciplinary methodologies such as co‐design, an approach capable of bridging multiple expertise. The core activities of co‐design are based on the premise of collaboration and on developing creative social environments. Yet achieving collaboration through co‐design is challenging as people need to understand each other, and develop trust and rapport. We argue that ‘informal‐mutual learning’ is central to building mutual understanding. This article explores how we create spaces for collaboration through co‐design by examining the social environments supporting them. It examines the value of collaboration and its impact upon participants within an action research project conducted in Scotland. We identified Cultural‐Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) as a suitable theoretical framework. It offers support for holistic inquiry into participation and learning. Its strength was in the attention that it pays to multi‐dimensional human interactions within the social environment. This led to an understanding of the concepts of boundary‐crossing and boundary space examined through a CHAT lens. The findings shed light on four designerly conditions supporting informal‐mutual learning when engaged in collaboration during co‐design situations: choreography and orchestration, aesthetics, playfulness, and quality and quantity of participation. The findings enable us to elaborate on the theorisation of boundary space, a theoretical space for the assemblage of multiple levels of expertise to achieve collaboration.

show abstract

“…Researchers have co-designed flexible tools with experts in urban spatial, health and social care settings for ongoing use and appropriation in other contexts in more recent tool design approaches (Baibarac and Petrescu 2019;Whitham et al 2019). However, appropriating tools designed elsewhere to be applied in different fields requires tailoring them for local conditions such as healthcare (Donetto et al 2015), urban planning (Iaione 2016), or social services (Cruickshank et al 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%