Experience‐based co‐design—Adapting the method for a researcher‐initiated study in a multi‐site setting

Bibliographic Data

ID19507172
AuthorsDavid K Raynor (0000-0003-0306-5275, University of Leeds Leeds UK, corresponding author), Hanif Ismail (0000-0002-7885-6648, University of Bradford Bradford UK), Alison Blenkinsopp (0000-0001-8872-2769, University of Bradford Bradford UK), Beth Fylan (0000-0003-0599-4537, University of Bradford Bradford UK), Gerry Armitage (0000-0002-1078-6268, University of Bradford Bradford UK), Jonathan Silcock (0000-0002-4920-9249, University of Bradford Bradford UK)
Year2020
Volume23
Issue3
Pages562-570
Publication date2020-06-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueHealth Expectations (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1369-6513 • E-ISSN: 1369-7625
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/hex.13028
PMID32045087
OpenAlexW3006235590
LanguageEN
Citations received13
References cited13

BACKGROUND: Experience-based co-design (EBCD) brings patients and staff together to co-design services. It is normally conducted in one organization which initiates and implements the process. We used the traditional EBCD method with a number of adaptations as part of a larger research study in the British National Health Service. METHODS: The primary aim was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of conducting research-initiated EBCD, to enhance intervention development prior to testing. As well as embedding the method in a research study, there were 3 further key adaptations: (a) working across primary and secondary care sectors, (b) working on multiple sites and (c) incorporating theory-informed analysis. RESULTS: We recruited four sites (covering both primary and secondary care) and, on each site, conducted the initial traditional EBCD meetings, with separate staff and patient groups-followed by a single joint patient-staff event, where four priority areas for co-design were agreed. This event was driven by theory-informed analysis, as well as the traditional trigger film of patient experiences. Each site worked on one priority area, and the four co-design groups met over 2-3 months to design prototype tools. A second joint event was held (not usually undertaken in single-site EBCD) where they shared and compared outputs. The research team combined elements of these outputs to create an intervention, now being tested in a cluster randomized controlled trial. CONCLUSIONS: EBCD can be successfully adapted for use across an entire patient pathway with multiple organizations and as part of a research process to identify an intervention for subsequent testing in a randomized trial. Our pragmatic approach used the patient experience to identify areas for improvement and co-designed an intervention which directly reflected patient priorities

Co-design · Data science · Knowledge management · Computer Science · Health Policy Implementation Science · Mental Health and Patient Involvement · Participatory Visual Research Methods · Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access