Co‐Designing Local Collaboration Between Social Services, Primary Healthcare, and the Third Sector—A Realist Process Evaluation
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19508322 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Maria Flink (0000-0003-0536-0024, Karolinska Institutet), Karin Johansson (0000-0003-3695-9304, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society Karolinska Institutet Stockholm Sweden), K Patrick Johansson (Karolinska Institutet), Christofer Lindgren (0009-0006-6597-9274, Nordic School of Public Health), Sarah Wallcook (0000-0002-8861-7552, Karolinska Institutet), Charlotte Klinga (0000-0003-0512-8719, Karolinska Institutet), Bettina Meinow (0000-0002-2059-9474, Karolinska Institutet), Ida Goliath (0000-0001-8245-5479, Karolinska Institutet), Helena Strehlenert (0000-0002-4399-5592, Karolinska Institutet, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 29 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | e70672-e70672 |
| Publication date | 2026-04-01 |
| 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.70672 |
| PMID | 41964350 |
| OpenAlex | W7153442215 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 41 |
INTRODUCTION: Co-design is increasingly used to develop research interventions and community services, highlighting the need for a deeper understanding of how this method drives change. This study evaluates the contextual factors and mechanisms shaping a co-design process intended to foster local collaboration between social services, primary care and the third sector. METHODS: A realist process evaluation was conducted in two stages: (1) formulation of an initial programme theory (IPT) consisting of Intervention-Context-Actor-Mechanism-Outcome (ICAMO) configurations, and (2) testing and refinement of the IPT. The IPT drew on comprehensive documentation from the planning and implementation phases of the co-design process. To test and refine the IPT, six group interviews were conducted using realist interviewing and analysed deductively using IPT-derived categories. RESULTS: Three interconnected ICAMO configurations were identified. The first concerns stakeholders' assessment of the potential value of participating in the co-design process and their decision to engage. The second highlights how emerging trust enabled respectful and constructive dialogue. The third focuses on the facilitation of ideation and prototyping of goals and terms for collaboration. Key mechanisms include sensing an opportunity for change, building trust, and experiencing group agency. CONCLUSION: Successful co-design requires facilitation that not only considers contextual factors but is also perceived as impartial, as such neutrality is vital for establishing trust. Constructive participation depends on representatives who combine relevant practical knowledge, a sense of opportunity for change, and the mandate or organisational conditions to act on outcomes. Continuity in participation, ensuring that the same individuals remain involved throughout the process, is also crucial for maintaining competence and for building the relationships and trust needed to develop shared goals and collaborative structures. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients and the public were not directly involved in the design, conduct or analysis of this study. However, this evaluation examined a co-design process involving third-sector organisations, including older adults. A public advisory board contributed to the broader participatory action research project
Action (physics) · Action research · Citizen journalism · Participatory action research · Participatory evaluation · Process (computing) · Public involvement · Qualitative research · Community Health and Development · Healthcare innovation and challenges · Mental Health and Patient Involvement
Evidence-based Policy
The concept of mechanism from a realist approach
Integration and collaboration in public health—a conceptual framework
Experience-based Co-design and Healthcare Improvement
Nurturing Collaborative Relations
The use of co-production, co-design and co-creation to mobilise knowledge in the management of health conditions
The impacts of collaboration between local health care and non-health care organizations and factors shaping how they work
A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions
A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production
Process evaluation of complex interventions
The manifestation of participation within a co‐design process involving patients, significant others and health‐care professionals
Mapping definitions of co‐production and co‐design in health and social care
A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research
Unpacking context in realist evaluations
Power dynamics and collaborative mechanisms in co-production and co-design processes
What works for whom in which circumstances? On the need to move beyond the ‘what works?’ question in organizational intervention research
Evaluating the outcomes of co-production in local government
The craft of interviewing in realist evaluation
Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis
Real Talk
Data Analysis and Synthesis Within a Realist Evaluation
| Highly cited | No |
|---|