Is Co-production Just a Pipe Dream for Applied Health Research Commissioning? An Exploratory Literature Review

Abstract

Background and Rationale: Internationally, the idea of "co-production' has become more popular in health research because of the promise of partnership between researchers and patients to create research that focuses on patients' needs. Patient and public involvement (PPI) at an early stage in deciding what research should be funded, can improve the quality and impact of research. However, professional power over the process places limits on the public practising their participatory rights for involvement in commissioning research that affects them and can leave members of the public feeling unheard or excluded, particularly within the context of early phase applied health research. Aim: This article explores whether and how the public can be involved in the co-production of research commissioning early on in the process, with a focus on the power relations that pervade basic and early phase translational applied health research. Methods: An exploratory literature review of international peer-reviewed and gray health research literature using structured searches of electronic databases and key search terms. Results: There is very little literature that critically evaluates how PPI is embedded into the early phases of the commissioning process. The field of basic or early translational applied research appear to be particularly challenging. Four themes which emerged from the review are: reasons for PPI in research commissioning; benefits of PPI at strategic levels of research commissioning; contributions of patients and members of the public; improving PPI in research commissioning. Conclusion: Although the public are being consulted at some stages of the research commissioning process, it is evident that the process of determining research priorities and agendas is far from being widely co-produced. Moving PPI from a consultative paternalistic model to a collaborative partnership model should be a priority for commissioners. Significant changes to communication, practices, systems, structures, or cultures that exclude patients and the public from contributing in meaningful ways, are needed to fulfill the potential of co-produced models of research commissioning.

Effective engagement and involvement with community stakeholders in the co-production of global health research

“…The BMJ peer reviewed, edited, and made the decision to publish. Doreen Tembo, senior research manager patient and public involvement and external review 1 Gary Hickey, senior public involvement manager 1,2 Cristian Montenegro, assistant professor 3 David Chandler, chief executive 4 Erica Nelson, research fellow 5 Katie Porter, assistant research manager, patient and public involvement 1 Lisa Dikomitis, professor of anthropology and sociology of health 6 Mary Chambers, head of public engagement with science 7,8 Moses Chimbari, professor of public health 9 Noni Mumba, head of community engagement 10 Peter Beresford, emeritus professor of citizen participation 11 Peter O Ekiikina, public contributor low and middle income countries 12 Rosemary Musesengwa, senior researcher 13 Sophie Staniszewska, professor of health research (patient and public involvement and experiences of care) 14 Tina Coldham, public adviser and research fellow 15,16 Una Rennard, public contributor to health and social care research 17…”

“…4 For research that drives change and reduces the waste of resources, 5 co-production should start from the earliest stages, when problems are identified and priorities defined. 6 Such an approach supports research that is ethical, specific, and appropriate to the local community. 7 8 9 10 11 12 Involvement of end users in the design of projects has also been shown to improve recruitment of participants and research methods, making implementation and the impact of the research results more likely.…”

The Views of People Living with Chronic Stroke and Aphasia on Their Potential Involvement as Research Partners: A Thematic Analysis

“…She holds a master's degree in for the Municipality of Nicosia (Cyprus). Her involvement encapsulates the 'citizen control engagement level' [10], that is, from the conceptualization of the research idea (to ask other people with stroke and aphasia about their opinions), in the design (semi-structured interviews), for recruitment (she suggested three other participants with stroke), for the analysis (she was present during the creation of the thematic matrix meeting), and the dissemination of the study results (she is a co-author on this paper).…”

Strengthening capacities and resource allocation for co-production of health research in low and middle income countries

“…Irene Akua Agyepong, professor 1,2 Sue Godt, consultant 3 Issiaka Sombie, professional officer, research and grants 4 Charity Binka, executive director 5 Vicky Okine, executive director 6 Marie-Gloriose Ingabire, programme officer 7 1 Ghana Health Service, Research and Development Division, Dodowa Health Research Center, Dodowa, Ghana This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution IGO License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc/3.0/igo/), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction for non-commercial purposes in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.…”

“…Despite this potential and the growing literature, co-production remains relatively limited in low and middle income countries (LMICs). 5 6 7 8 9 Globally, researchers in high income countries lead most current work. For example, a rapid PubMed search on 19 October 2020 yielded 2009 articles for the terms “co-production” and “research.” Adding the terms “developing country/countries” or “low- and middle-income country/countries” reduced the results to fewer than 30.…”