Is Co-production Just a Pipe Dream for Applied Health Research Commissioning? An Exploratory Literature Review
Datos Bibliográficos
| ID | 16948314 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Doreen Tembo (0000-0002-8615-3563, University of Southampton, autor de correspondencia), Elizabeth Morrow (0000-0003-0649-629X), Louise Worswick (0000-0003-1184-5722, Taunton & Somerset NHS Foundation Trust), Debby Lennard (University of Southampton) |
| Año | 2019 |
| Volumen | 4 |
| Páginas | 50-50 |
| Fecha de publicación | 2019-06-24 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sí |
| Open Access | Sí |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Revista | Frontiers in Sociology (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores de la revista | ISSN: 2297-7775 • E-ISSN: 2297-7775 |
| Editorial | Frontiers Media SA (PUBLISHER • CH) |
| DOI | 10.3389/fsoc.2019.00050 |
| PMID | 33869373 |
| OpenAlex | W2954660224 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citas recibidas | 6 |
| Referencias citadas | 84 |
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 patient’s 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 practicing 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 grey 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 fulfil the potential of co-produced models of research commissioning
Exploratory research · General partnership · Participatory action research · Political science · Project commissioning · Public health · Public relations · Publishing · Social science · Sociology · Translational research · Health Policy Implementation Science · Healthcare innovation and challenges · Medicine · Mental Health and Patient Involvement · Nursing
Lessons on applying a trauma‐informed research approach in health professions education scholarship
Evaluating the role and effectiveness of co‐produced community‐based mental health interventions that aim to reduce suicide among adults
Commissioning and co‐production in health and care services in the United Kingdom and Ireland
Between Public Guidelines for User Involvement and Ideals About Free Research
The rise of patient and public involvement in health research in Denmark – a qualitative study of funder's policies and practices
Integrating Co-Created and Theory-Driven Insights
Patient engagement in research
Community-based Participatory Research: Assessing the Evidence: Evidence Report/Technology Assessment, Number 99
Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence
Consumer involvement in health research
Patient-expert partnerships in research
Citizens’ juries in planning research priorities
Using a co‐production prioritization exercise involving South Asian children, young people and their families to identify health priorities requiring further research and public awareness
Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research
Is it worth it? Patient and public views on the impact of their involvement in health research and its assessment
‘But is it a question worth asking?’ A reflective case study describing how public involvement can lead to researchers’ ideas being abandoned
Close to the bench as well as at the bedside
Assessment of the benefits of user involvement in health research from the Warwick Diabetes Care Research User Group
Patient and service user engagement in research
A multidimensional conceptual framework for analysing public involvement in health services research
Health researchers’ attitudes towards public involvement in health research
Patient involvement in research programming and implementation
Involving citizens in priority setting for public health research
Prioritizing research topics
The Possibilities and Limits of “Co-producing” Research
Exploring the Relationship (and Power Dynamic) Between Researchers and Public Partners Working Together in Applied Health Research Teams
Beware Zombies and Unicorns
A service users’ research advisory group from the perspectives of both service users and researchers
Imposed Structures and Contested Meanings
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Dialogue and deliberation
Patient Participation in Health Research
Towards deep inclusion for equity-oriented health research priority-setting
The experiential knowledge of patients
| Obras citantes distintas | 6 |
|---|---|
| Citas por año | 2 |
| Intervalo de citas | 2023 - 2026 (4) |
| Velocidad de citación | current |
| Altamente citado | No |
| Tipos de cita | Neutras: 6 |