A qualitative evaluation of coproduction of research
‘If you do it properly, you will get turbulence’
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19506771 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Joanne Worsley (0000-0001-6285-5870, Department of Primary Care and Mental Health University of Liverpool Liverpool UK, corresponding author), Mick Mckeown (0000-0003-3599-2153, School of Nursing University of Central Lancashire Preston UK), Timothy Wilson (0000-0002-9891-9319, Applied Research Collaboration North West Coast (ARC NWC) Liverpool UK), Timothy L Wilson (North West London Pathology), Rhiannon Corcoran (0000-0001-8900-9199, Department of Primary Care and Mental Health University of Liverpool Liverpool UK) |
| Year | 2022 |
| Volume | 25 |
| Issue | 5 |
| Pages | 2034-2042 |
| Publication date | 2022-10-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Health Expectations (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1369-6513 • E-ISSN: 1369-7625 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/hex.13261 |
| PMID | 33949751 |
| OpenAlex | W3158052909 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 17 |
| References cited | 18 |
BACKGROUND: Patients and public members are increasingly involved across the different stages of the research process. Their involvement is particularly important in the conception and design of applied health research where it enables people with lived experience to influence the aims, content, focus and methods. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the process of coproducing a mental health-related research proposal suitable for funding through a national health research funding body. METHODS: Reflections from members of the public (n = 3) and academic researchers (n = 3) were collected through semi-structured interviews. Data were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Thematic analysis identified five overarching themes: valuing the lived experience perspective; matching ambitions to the funded research process; 'Us and them': power, relationships and trust; challenges; and benefits of coproduction. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that for successful coproduction of a research funding application, an open and trusting atmosphere, where equal relationships are established and a shared common goal agreed is essential. Although relationships with research professionals were framed by trust and mutual respect for some public advisors, others felt a sense of 'us and them'. With various tensions played out through interpersonal conflict, difficult conversations and disagreements, coproduction was not a positive experience for all stakeholders involved. Among the learning was that when collaboration of this kind is constrained by time or funding, genuine, impactful coproduction can be more challenging than is generally acknowledged
Coproduction · Political science · Public relations · Qualitative research · Social science · Sociology · Thematic analysis · Computer Science · Health Policy Implementation Science · Mental Health and Patient Involvement · Participatory Visual Research Methods · Psychology
Active involvement in alcohol care
Patients as Co‐Researchers in Oncology
‘Working Together to Meet in the Middle’. A Qualitative Descriptive Study of Power Dynamics in Lived Experience and Family Engagement in Mental Health and Substance Use Health Research
Mental Health Family Carer Coresearchers
A qualitative evaluation of coproduction of research
Evaluating Process and Outcomes of Public Involvement in Applied Health and Social Care Research
‘Motivating Implicit Chinese to Express Themselves Is the Biggest Barrier’
A Qualitative Evaluation Exploring Co‐Production of Falls Management in Care Homes
‘ Co‐Production Is Caring ’
Disrupting patterns of exclusion in participatory spaces
The Dilemmas and Opportunities of Co‐Creating Health Interventions to Fit Local Contexts
Lived experience and family engagement in psychiatry research
Best Practices Guidelines for the Engagement of People With Lived Experience and Family Members in Mental Health and Substance Use Health Research
Lived experience engagement in mental health research
Developing a Women's Thought Collective methodology for health research
Patient and public involvement in health research from researchers' perspective
What Do We Know About Sharing Power in Co‐Production in Mental Health Research? A Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis
Creating Citizen-Consumers
Care in everyday life
A Systematic Review of the Impact of Patient and Public Involvement on Service Users, Researchers and Communities
The dark side of coproduction
A qualitative evaluation of coproduction of research
‘Talking the talk or walking the walk?’ A bibliometric review of the literature on public involvement in health research published between 1995 and 2009
User involvement in the development of a research bid
'A limpet on a ship'
Relational, ethically sound co-production in mental health care research
User Involvement in Research and Evaluation
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Citizen Participation as Political Ritual
| Unique citing works | 17 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 4,25 |
| Citation span | 2022 - 2026 (5) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 17 |