Pilot implementation of co-designed software for co-production in mental health care planning: a qualitative evaluation of staff perspectives

Farr, Michelle; Pithara, Christalla; Sullivan, Sarah; Edwards, Hannah B; Hall, William M.; Gadd, Caroline; Walker, Julian; Hebden, Nick; Horwood, Jeremy

doi:10.1080/09638237.2019.1608925

Cited by 12 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…patients, services users or clinicians) can bring to the design process as equal partners, beyond user involvement or consultation [ 102 ]. Stakeholder groups involved in these co-design projects included patients, carers, healthcare professionals, service users, local people and software or technology developers [ 13 , 43 , 46 , 49 , 51 , 54 , 61 , 103 ]. Another frequently mentioned term was EBCD, which was defined by Chisholm as “a service design strategy that facilitates collaborative work between professional staff and service users toward common goals” in every stage of the design process [ 46 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With various levels and types of engagement, the need to resolve (inevitable) disagreements was mentioned in several papers. Some highlighted that when disagreement arises between stakeholders and researchers, or when there is conflict between service users, practitioners and organizational perspectives [ 49 ], discussion of differences should be encouraged and not regarded as a threat [ 24 ]. Similarly, allowing stakeholders to challenge researchers’ intentions and assumptions was encouraged and regarded as beneficial [ 52 ].…”

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

“…Regarding sociodemographic characteristics, women and young people seem more likely to co-create (Farr et al. , 2018, 2019). Poor health status , especially mental health, is an obstacle to CC (Farr et al.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-creation in healthcare: framing the outcomes and their determinants

Fusco

Marsilio

Guglielmetti

2023

JOSM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeUnderstanding the outcomes of co-creation (CC) in healthcare is increasingly gaining multidisciplinary scientific interest. Although more and more service management scholars have pointed out the benefits of cross-fertilization between the various research fields, the literature on this topic is still scattered and poorly integrated. This study aims to summarize and integrate multiple strands of extant knowledge CC by identifying the outcomes of health CC and the determinants of these outcomes and their relationships.Design/methodology/approachA structured literature review was conducted per PRISMA guidelines. A total of 4,189 records were retrieved from the six databases; 1,983 articles were screened, with 161 included in the qualitative thematic analysis.FindingsThis study advances a comprehensive framework for healthcare CC based on a thorough analysis of the outcomes and their determinants, that is, antecedents, management activities and institutional context. Extant research rarely evaluates outcomes from a multidimensional and systemic perspective. Less attention has been paid to the relationship among the CC process elements.Research limitations/implicationsThis study offers an agenda to guide future studies on healthcare CC. Highlighting some areas of integration among different disciplines further advances service literature.Practical implicationsThe framework offers an operational guide to better shape managerial endeavors to facilitate CC, provide direction and assess multiple outcomes.Originality/valueThis is the first extensive attempt to synthesize and integrate multidisciplinary knowledge on CC outcomes in healthcare settings by adopting a systematic perspective on the overall process.

show abstract

“…We believe this to be an innovative project in the field of developing a decision support tool using the principles of co-production and evaluating the experiences and reflections of those involved in the process. Studies have reported upon co-production as a method of increasing user involvement, primarily in the form of exploratory studies [24,25] or case study [26][27][28][29][30][31] reviews. However, there is a dearth of literature relating to the combined experience of a team of modelling researchers and stakeholders on iteratively co-producing a simulation decision support tool.…”

Section: Summary Of Main Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating stakeholder involvement in building a decision support tool for NHS health checks: co-producing the WorkHORSE study

Lloyd-Williams

Hyseni

Guzman-Castillo

et al. 2020

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Stakeholder engagement is being increasingly recognised as an important way to achieving impact in public health. The WorkHORSE (Working Health Outcomes Research Simulation Environment) project was designed to continuously engage with stakeholders to inform the development of an open access modelling tool to enable commissioners to quantify the potential cost-effectiveness and equity of the NHS Health Check Programme. An objective of the project was to evaluate the involvement of stakeholders in co-producing the WorkHORSE computer modelling tool and examine how they perceived their involvement in the model building process and ultimately contributed to the strengthening and relevance of the modelling tool. Methods: We identified stakeholders using our extensive networks and snowballing techniques. Iterative development of the decision support modelling tool was informed through engaging with stakeholders during four workshops. We used detailed scripts facilitating open discussion and opportunities for stakeholders to provide additional feedback subsequently. At the end of each workshop, stakeholders and the research team completed questionnaires to explore their views and experiences throughout the process. Results: 30 stakeholders participated, of which 15 attended two or more workshops. They spanned local (NHS commissioners, GPs, local authorities and academics), third sector and national organisations including Public Health England. Stakeholders felt valued, and commended the involvement of practitioners in the iterative process. Major reasons for attending included: being able to influence development, and having insight and understanding of what the tool could include, and how it would work in practice. Researchers saw the process as an opportunity for developing a common language and trust in the end product, and ensuring the support tool was transparent. The workshops acted as a reality check ensuring model scenarios and outputs were relevant and fit for purpose.

show abstract

Pilot implementation of co-designed software for co-production in mental health care planning: a qualitative evaluation of staff perspectives

Cited by 12 publications

References 26 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-creation in healthcare: framing the outcomes and their determinants

Evaluating stakeholder involvement in building a decision support tool for NHS health checks: co-producing the WorkHORSE study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About