Rethinking research processes to strengthen co-production in low and middle income countries

Beran, David; Pesantes, María Amalia; Berghusen, Maria Claudia; Hennig, Branwen J.; Jacobi, Johanna; Lazo-Porras, María; Llanque, Aymara; Placella, Enrichetta; Robledo-Abad, Carmenza; Bayona, Marta Tufet; Miranda, J. Jaime

doi:10.1136/bmj.m4785

Cited by 33 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To facilitate these dialogues and to enable the reflection of societal concerns, Beran et al advocate for platforms for exchange and the institutionalisation of a multistakeholder approach. 50 Consistent with findings of previous studies, our study showed that trusted relationships can lead to trust in evidence and the acceptance and adoption of new evidence, which may otherwise be regarded as controversial or 'negative' evidence. [51][52][53] This may be the case if foundational knowledge, which has entrenched within evidence consumers over time, is being challenged, not meeting their expectations.…”

Section: Political Modelsupporting

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How are mathematical models and results from mathematical models of vaccine-preventable diseases used, or not, by global health organisations?

Christen

Conteh

2021

BMJ Glob Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While epidemiological and economic evidence has the potential to provide answers to questions, guide complex programmes and inform resource allocation decisions, how this evidence is used by global health organisations who commission it and what organisational actions are generated from the evidence remains unclear. This study applies analytical tools from organisational science to understand how evidence produced by infectious disease epidemiologists and health economists is used by global health organisations. A conceptual framework that embraces evidence use typologies and relates findings to the organisational process of action generation informs and structures the research. Between March and September 2020, we conducted in-depth interviews with mathematical modellers (evidence producers) and employees at global health organisations, who are involved in decision-making processes (evidence consumers). We found that commissioned epidemiological and economic evidence is used to track progress and provides a measure of success, both in terms of health outcomes and the organisations’ mission. Global health organisations predominantly use this evidence to demonstrate accountability and solicit funding from external partners. We find common understanding and awareness across consumers and producers about the purposes and uses of these commissioned pieces of work and how they are distinct from more academic explorative research outputs. Conceptual evidence use best describes this process. Evidence is slowly integrated into organisational processes and is one of many influences on global health organisations’ actions. Relationships developed over time and trust guide the process, which may lead to quite a concentrated cluster of those producing and commissioning models. These findings raise several insights relevant to the literature of research utilisation in organisations and evidence-based management. The study extends our understanding of how evidence is used and which organisational actions are generated as a result of commissioning epidemiological and economic evidence.

show abstract

Section: Political Modelsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How are mathematical models and results from mathematical models of vaccine-preventable diseases used, or not, by global health organisations?

Christen

Conteh

2021

BMJ Glob Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Weak application validity can also arise if the research problem and questions are framed from a purely disciplinary or academic perspective (Beran et al 2021). Future archetype analyses may improve their application validity by embracing transdisciplinary co-creation of knowledge through participatory research approaches (Wuelser et al 2021, Jacobi et al 2022), as discussed in section 4.3.2.…”

Section: Directions For Future Validation 431 Improving Weaker Validity Dimensionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity and validation in archetype analysis: practical assessment framework and guidelines

Piemontese

Neudert

Oberlack

et al. 2022

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Archetype analysis is a promising approach in sustainability science to identify patterns and explain mechanisms shaping the sustainability of social-ecological systems. Although considerable efforts have been devoted to developing quality standards and methodological advances for archetype analysis, archetype validation remains a major challenge. Drawing on the insights from two international workshops on archetype analysis and on broader literature on validity, we propose a framework that identifies and describes six dimensions of validity: conceptual; construct; internal; external; empirical; and application validity. We first discuss the six dimensions in relation to different methodological approaches and purposes of archetype analysis. We then present an operational use of the framework for researchers to assess the validity of archetype analysis and to support sound archetype identification and policy-relevant applications. Finally, we apply our assessment to 18 published archetype analyses, which we use to describe the challenges and insights in validating the different dimensions and suggest ways to holistically improve the validity of identified archetypes. With this, we contribute to more rigorous archetype analyses, helping to develop the potential of the approach for guiding sustainability solutions.

show abstract

“…Trust is particularly important in working with less powerful stakeholders 471314. In low and middle income countries funders and donors may need to reorient their views to place more trust in local knowledge1516; new kinds of funding from USAID and other donors have supported initiatives to build trust and facilitate co-production 15.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, a different approach to research funding will be needed to support the complex partnerships necessary for co-production. Historically, research funding was mainly provided for short term projects and did not effectively support the development of long term partnerships or collaborative infrastructure; Beran and colleagues describe the need to fund “partnerships rather than projects.”13 More recently, many agencies have established funding opportunities that support long term relationships and co-production (such as the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation’s African Health Initiative,15 Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council partnership centres, the UK’s collaborations for leadership in applied health research and care, and Canada’s knowledge to action grants). These are to be encouraged as critical to co-production.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-production of knowledge: the future

Redman

Greenhalgh

Adedokun

et al. 2021

BMJ

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Rethinking research processes to strengthen co-production in low and middle income countries

Abstract: Co-production needs to become an integral part of the training and funding of researchers to ensure research meets everyone's needs, argue David Beran and colleagues on 21 February 2021 by guest. Protected by copyright.

Cited by 33 publications

References 15 publications

How are mathematical models and results from mathematical models of vaccine-preventable diseases used, or not, by global health organisations?

How are mathematical models and results from mathematical models of vaccine-preventable diseases used, or not, by global health organisations?

Validity and validation in archetype analysis: practical assessment framework and guidelines

Co-production of knowledge: the future

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About