Search

Background: This paper aims to explore the impact of recovery education on recovery knowledge, attitudes and the quality of life of students undertaking recovery education, contributing to the evidence base in relation to the impact of recovery education. It also explores the experiences of all stakeholders involved in the co‐facilitation, delivery and participation in recovery education. Setting and Participants: This study evaluates the experiences of stakeholders involved in the co‐facilitation, delivery and participation in recovery education across four recovery colleges in Ireland. Participants included students undertaking recovery education, peer educators, education facilitators, recovery college coordinators and practitioner/service providers. Discussion: Findings from the quantitative survey when compared with extant literature suggest that students had a good understanding of recovery education. The social aspect of empowerment for growth and wellbeing was identified through themes relating to co‐production and facilitating student learning. Support for equitable access to recovery education, including co‐production for both the public and staff, was identified as a challenge for the future. Conclusion: The findings from both the qualitative and quantitative components of the study show the positive impact of recovery education on stakeholders while acknowledging the need for ongoing support for people working in recovery education and the development of services. In particular, there was a high level of recovery knowledge found in students undertaking recovery education. Patient or Public Contribution: This study utilised a co‐created study design. From inception a steering group comprising stakeholders (peer educators, recovery education facilitators including past recovery college students and nonpeer staff involved in the co‐production of recovery education) directed the conduct of the evaluation. This steering group participated in an iterative process of information sharing, suggestions for evaluation process and language. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Co‐production is gaining increasing recognition as a good way of facilitating collaboration among different stakeholders, including members of the public. However, it remains an ambiguous concept as there is no definitive or universal model of co‐production or clarity on what constitutes a good co‐production approach. This paper draws on the reflections of the academic researchers, practitioners and public advisors involved in co‐producing a priority‐setting exercise. The exercise was conducted by the Primary and Community Health Services (PCHS) Theme of the National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration for Kent, Surrey and Sussex (NIHR ARC KSS). Methods: We collected data through written and verbal reflections from seven collaborators involved in the PCHS priority‐setting exercise. We used Gibbs' model of reflection to guide the data collection. We then analysed the data through an inductive, reflexive thematic analysis. Results: A common thread through our reflections was the concept of 'sharing'. Although co‐production is inherently shared, we used the virtuous cycle to illustrate a sequence of sharing concepts during the research cycle, which provides the underpinnings of positive co‐production outcomes. We identified six themes to denote the iterative process of a shared approach within the virtuous cycle: shared values, shared understanding, shared power, shared responsibilities, shared ownership and positive outcomes. Conclusion: Our results present a virtuous cycle of co‐production, which furthers the conceptual underpinnings of co‐production. Through our reflections, we propose that positive co‐production outcomes require foundations of shared values and a shared understanding of co‐production as a concept. These foundations facilitate a process of shared power, shared responsibilities and shared ownership. We argue that when these elements are present in a co‐production exercise, there is a greater potential for implementable outcomes in the communities in which the research serves and the empowerment of collaborators involved in the co‐production process. Public Members' Contributions: Three members of the public who are public advisors in the NIHR ARC KSS were involved in the priority‐setting exercise that informed this paper. The public advisors were involved in the design of the priority‐setting exercise and supported participants' recruitment. They also co‐facilitated the focus groups during data collection and were involved in the data analysis, interpretation and preparation of the priority‐setting report. For this current manuscript, two of them are co‐authors. They provided reflections and contributed to the writing and reviewing of this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The implementation science literature acknowledges a need for engagement of key stakeholders when designing, delivering and evaluating implementation work. To date, the literature reports minimal or focused stakeholder engagement, where stakeholders are engaged in either barrier identification and/or barrier prioritisation. This paper begins to answer calls from the literature for the development of tools and guidance to support comprehensive stakeholder engagement in implementation research and practice. The paper describes the systematic development of the Implementation‐STakeholder Engagement Model (I‐STEM) in the context of an international, large‐scale empirical implementation study (ImpleMentAll) aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of a tailored implementation toolkit. The I‐STEM is a sensitising tool that defines key considerations and activities for undertaking stakeholder engagement activities across an implementation process. Methods: In‐depth, semistructured interviews and observations were conducted with implementers who were tailoring implementation strategies to integrate and embed internet‐based cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) services in 12 routine mental health care organisations in nine countries in Europe and Australia. The analytical process was informed by principles of first‐ and third‐generation Grounded Theory, including constant comparative method. Results: We conducted 55 interviews and observed 19 implementation‐related activities (e.g., team meetings and technical support calls). The final outcome of our analysis is expressed in an initial version of the I‐STEM, consisting of five interrelated concepts: engagement objectives, stakeholder mapping, engagement approaches, engagement qualities and engagement outcomes. Engagement objectives are goals that implementers plan to achieve by working with stakeholders in the implementation process. Stakeholder mapping involves identifying a range of organisations, groups or people who may be instrumental in achieving the engagement objectives. Engagement approaches define the type of work that is undertaken with stakeholders to achieve the engagement objectives. Engagement qualities define the logistics of the engagement approach. Lastly, every engagement activity may result in a range of engagement outcomes. Conclusion: The I‐STEM represents potential avenues for substantial stakeholder engagement activity across key phases of an implementation process. It provides a conceptual model for the planning, delivery, evaluation and reporting of stakeholder engagement activities. The I‐STEM is nonprescriptive and highlights the importance of a flexible, iterative approach to stakeholder engagement. It is developmental and will require application and validation across a range of implementation activities. Patient or Public Contribution: Patient contribution to ImpleMentAll trial was facilitated by GAMIAN‐Europe at all stages—from grant development to dissemination. GAMIAN‐Europe brings together a wide variety of patient representation organisations (local, regional and national) from almost all European countries. GAMIAN‐Europe was involved in pilot testing the ItFits‐toolkit and provided their views on the various aspects, including stakeholder engagement. Patients were also represented in the external advisory board providing support and advice on the design, conduct and interpretation of the wider project, including the development of the ItFits‐toolkit. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03652883. Retrospectively registered on 29 August 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Involving service users in health service design and delivery is considered important to improve the quality of healthcare because it ensures that the delivery of healthcare is adapted to the needs of the users. Co‐production is a process used to involve service users, but multiple papers have highlighted the need for the mechanisms and values guiding co‐production to be more clearly stated. The aim of this paper was to evaluate the mechanisms and values that guided the co‐production approach of the Stories for Change project, which used Public Narrative as part of the co‐design process to create change in National Health Service maternity services. Methods: This study was conducted using a rapid feedback evaluation approach. Semistructured interviews (n = 16) were the main source of data, six of which were maternity service users, with observations (5 h) and documentary analysis also carried out in parallel. RREAL sheets were used for data analysis to organize data based on key topics of interest. Results: This study identified three broad mechanisms and values underpinning the co‐production approach: creating an open and safe space to share ideas, learning how to tell stories using Public Narrative and having service providers who play a key role in strengthening the health system listen to stories compelling them to action. This study identified the main areas for improvement of the Stories for Change project related to recruitment, the inclusion of participants, the co‐design process, the Skills Session and the Learning Event. Conclusion: Our study provided a deeper understanding of the co‐production approach that addresses the need to uncover the mechanism and values underlying co‐production and co‐design approaches. This study expands on the literature pertaining to the influence of storytelling in creating meaningful change in health care. We propose a co‐design methodology that uses Public Narrative as a model for service user engagement to help inform future healthcare development processes. Patient or Public Contribution: The experiences and perceptions of maternity service users and health professionals informed this evaluation. The project organizers were involved in the manuscript preparation stage by providing feedback, and service users wrote a commentary on the project from the lived experience perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Co‐production with communities is increasingly seen as best practice that can improve the quality, relevance and effectiveness of research and service delivery. Despite this promising position, there remains uncertainty around definitions of co‐production and how to operationalize it. The current paper describes the development of a co‐production strategy to guide the work of the ActEarly multistakeholder preventative research programme to improve children's health in Bradford and Tower Hamlets, UK. Methods: The strategy used Appreciative Inquiry (AI), an approach following a five‐step iterative process: to define (Step 1) scope and guide progress; to discover (Step 2) key issues through seven focus groups (N = 36) and eight in‐depth interviews with key stakeholders representing community groups, and the voluntary and statutory sectors; to dream (Step 3) best practice through two workshops with AI participants to review findings; to design (Step 4) a co‐production strategy building on AI findings and to deliver (Step 5) the practical guidance in the strategy. Results: Nine principles for how to do co‐production well were identified: power should be shared; embrace a wide range of perspectives and skills; respect and value the lived experience; benefits should be for all involved parties; go to communities and do not expect them to come to you; work flexibly; avoid jargon and ensure availability of the right information; relationships should be built for the long‐term; co‐production activities should be adequately resourced. These principles were based on three underlying values of equality, reciprocity and agency. Conclusion: The empirical insights of the paper highlight the crucial importance of adequate resources and infrastructure to deliver effective co‐production. This documentation of one approach to operationalizing co‐production serves to avert any misappropriations of the term 'co‐production' by listening to service users, stakeholders and other relevant groups, to develop trust and long‐term relationships, and build on the learning that already exists amongst such groups. Patient or Public Contribution: The work was overseen by a steering group (N = 17) of individuals, both professional and members of the public with experience in undertaking co‐production, and/or with some knowledge of the context of the two ActEarly field sites, who provided regular oversight and feedback on the AI process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Suicide is a major public health risk requiring targeted suicide prevention interventions. The principles of co‐production are compatible with tailoring suicide prevention interventions to meet an individual's needs. Aims: This review aimed to evaluate the role and effectiveness of co‐produced community‐based suicide prevention interventions among adults. Methods: Four electronic databases (PsycInfo, CINAHL, MEDLINE and web of science) were systematically searched. A narrative synthesis was conducted. Results: From 590 papers identified through searches, 14 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Most included studies elicited the views and perspectives of stakeholders in a process of co‐design/co‐creation of community‐based suicide prevention interventions. Conclusion: Stakeholder involvement in the creation of community‐based suicide prevention interventions may improve engagement and give voice to those experiencing suicidal crisis. However, there is limited evaluation extending beyond the design of these interventions. Further research is needed to evaluate the long‐term outcomes of co‐produced community‐based suicide prevention interventions. Patient and Public Involvement: This paper is a systematic review and did not directly involve patients and/or the public. However, the findings incorporate the views and perspectives of stakeholders as reported within the studies included in this review, and the findings may inform the future involvement of stakeholders in the design, development and delivery of community‐based suicide prevention interventions for adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Public involvement in health research and its translation is well recognized to improve health interventions. However, this approach is insufficiently practised and evidenced in relation to young people. This paper presents an analysis of the process of co‐producing a framework, partnership model and a growing network of young people informing and guiding an adolescent health research community of practice. Methods: A Living Lab is a participatory research approach that brings together a broad range of stakeholders in iterative cycles of research, design, development, pilot‐testing, evaluation and delivery to implement effective responses to complex phenomena. The geographical setting for this study was Sydney, NSW, Australia, and involved both youth and adult stakeholders from this region. The study spanned three phases between July 2018 and January 2021, and data collection included a range of workshops, a roundtable discussion and an online survey. Results: The co‐production process resulted in three key outputs: first, an engagement framework to guide youth participation in health research; second, a partnership model to sustain youth and adult stakeholder collaboration; third, the growth of the public involvement of young people with a range of projects and partners. Conclusions: This study investigated the process of co‐producing knowledge with young people in an adolescent health community of practice. A reflexive process supported youth and adult stakeholders to collaboratively investigate, design and pilot‐test approaches that embed young people's engagement in adolescent health research. Shared values and iterative methods for co‐production can assist in advancing mutual learning, commitment and trust in specific adolescent health research contexts. Public Contribution: Young people guiding and informing an adolescent health research community of practice were involved in this study, and one of the participants is a paper co‐author. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the methodological aspects of a user‐led study investigating mental health service user experiences of targeted violence and abuse (often called 'hate crime'). 'Keeping Control' was a 16‐month qualitative study, undertaken in the context of adult safeguarding reforms in England. By collecting data on service user concepts and experiences, the research sought to address a gap in research and practice knowledge relating to targeted violence, abuse and hostility against people with mental health problems. In this paper, we discuss the significance of the design and methodology used for this study, with a particular focus on the interviews with service users. The research was both user‐led and carried out in collaboration with practitioners and academics, a form of research co‐production. Our aim is to inform researchers, practitioners and policymakers about the value of user leadership in co‐productive research with practitioners, particularly for a highly sensitive and potentially distressing topic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Co‐production is predicated on equal power‐sharing and responsibility in research partnerships. However, relatively few accounts exist that explore the subjective experience of how co‐researchers achieve such equality, from the perspectives of public contributors and researchers. Aim: This paper aims to provide a unique insight into the process of co‐production, by weaving personal reflections with principles to evaluate the impact arising from co‐produced knowledge. It is based upon participatory research that was initiated by a 'lay' person, on behalf of a community organization, seeking support for Somali families who are affected by autism. The paper explores the evolving partnerships that began with community theatre and qualitative research and leading to extensive dissemination and impact, all of which has been jointly owned and negotiated by the co‐researchers and community organizations. Discussion: Initially, this paper reflects on the process, drawing on principles defined for co‐production in health research and combining it with the co‐researcher's personal reflections of their experiences as insiders and outsiders, stepping in and out of each other's worlds. The value of reciprocity, flexibility and continuous reflection is illustrated. The latter part of the paper explores the impact of this co‐produced knowledge using a theoretical framework, to assess the specific impacts and its broader transformative potential. It demonstrates how (1) opportunities for all partners to be equitably involved to the maximum degree possible throughout the research process can affect social change and (2) co‐produced research can become a catalyst that is dynamic and complex, achieving multi‐layered impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is limited evidence of genuine equal partnership where power is shared with young people with mental health difficulties throughout all research stages, particularly in data collection and analysis. Objective: To describe how our qualitative study, exploring young peoples' perceptions on the feasibility of using technology to detect mental health deterioration, was co‐produced using principles of co‐production, whilst reflecting on impact, challenges and recommendations. Methods: Young people with experience of mental health difficulties were appointed and then worked with researchers throughout all research stages. The study was evaluated against the five principles of co‐production. Reflections from researchers and young people were collected throughout. Results: Seven young people formed an initial Young People's Advisory Group (YPAG); three became co‐researchers. Reflection was key throughout the process. Sharing power became easier and more evident as trust, confidence and mutual respect grew over time, particularly after a safe space was established. The safe space was crucial for open discussions, and our WhatsApp group enabled continual communication, support and shared decision‐making. The resulting co‐produced topic guide, coding framework, thematic map, papers and presentations demonstrated significant impact. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first qualitative mental health study to be co‐produced using the principles of co‐production. Our rigorous assessment can be utilized as an informative document to help others to produce meaningful co‐produced future research. Although co‐production takes time, it makes significant impact to the research, researchers and co‐researchers. Flexible funding for spontaneous suggestions from co‐researchers and more time for interview training is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient and public involvement and co‐production are widely used, but nevertheless contested concepts in applied health research. There is much confusion about what they are, how they might be undertaken and how they relate to each other. There are distinct challenges and particular gaps in public involvement in alcohol research, especially when the study focus is on health matters other than alcohol dependence. Objective: To explore how patient and public involvement and co‐production have been interpreted and applied within a multi‐disciplinary research programme in the development of a complex intervention on alcohol and medicine use in community pharmacies. Design: The paper presents the authors' critical reflection on a grounded example of how public involvement concepts have been translated into practice in the intervention development phase of a publicly funded research programme, noting its impact on the programme to date. Discussion: Co‐production adds another layer of complexity in the development of a complex intervention. The research planning requirements for publicly funded research circumscribe the possibilities for co‐production, including impacting on the possibility of stability and continuity over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This realist literature review, regarding active patient involvement in healthcare quality improvement (QI), seeks to identify possible mechanisms that contribute to success or failure. Furthermore, the paper outlines key considerations for organizing and supporting patient involvement in healthcare QI efforts. Methods: Two literature searches were performed. Altogether, 1204 articles from a healthcare context were screened, focusing on improvement efforts that involve patients, healthcare professionals and/or managers and leaders. Among these, 107 articles fulfilled the chosen study selection criteria and were further analysed. Eighteen articles underwent a full realist review. In the realist synthesis, context‐mechanism‐outcome configurations were articulated as middle‐range theories and organized thematically to generate a program theory on how active patient involvement in QI efforts might work. Results: The articles exhibited a diversity of patient involvement approaches at different levels of healthcare organizations. To be successful, organizations' support of QI efforts that actively involved patients tailored the QI efforts to their context to achieve the desired outcomes, and involved the relevant microsystem members. Furthermore, it promoted interaction and partnership within the microsystem, and supported the behavioural change that follows. Conclusion: This realist synthesis generates a program theory for active patient involvement in QI efforts; active patient involvement can be a tool (resource), if tailored for interaction and partnership (reasoning), that leads to behaviour change (outcome) within healthcare QI efforts. The theory explains essential resource and reasoning mechanisms, and outcomes that together form guidance for healthcare organizations when managing active patient involvement in QI efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Engaging with the public is a key element of health research; however, little work has examined experiences of public involvement in research dissemination. The aim of this paper was to assess the extent of public involvement, experiences of public advisers and resulting changes in the dissemination of the North West Coast Household Health Survey (HHS). Methods: Three writing groups allowed public advisers to contribute to the dissemination of the HHS. A public workshop was set up to aid the co‐production of the research evidence and discuss the experiences of public advisers involved with the survey in March 2018. A focus group with public advisers was conducted in August 2018 to understand their experiences of involvement. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and coded by two researchers. Writing groups are still on‐going. Results: Fourteen public advisers contributed via three face‐to‐face writing groups, by actively interpreting findings and helping in the write‐up of research articles and by presenting talks at the public workshop. At the workshop, seven public advisors contributed to setting priorities for data analysis from the HHS. Five public advisers took part in the focus group, which highlighted that whilst public advisers were generally satisfied with their involvement, they would like to be involved in more activities. Conclusions: Members of the public shaped the dissemination of evidence and provided guidance for future steps. Public advisers were mostly positive about their involvement in the dissemination of the HHS, but highlighted the need for more transparency and support from researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: The 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children have the right to be heard in all matters affecting them. The Convention inspired a surge in research that investigates young people's perspectives on health and wellness‐related concerns and that involves children as 'co‐researchers'. Young people's advisory groups (YPAGs) are a widely used method to enable young people's involvement in all research stages, but there is a lack of academic literature to guide researchers on how to set up, run and evaluate the impact of such groups. Objective: In this paper, we provide a step‐by‐step model, grounded in our own experience of setting up and coordinating the Oxford Neuroscience, Ethics and Society Young People's Advisory Group (NeurOx YPAG). This group supports studies at the intersection of ethics, mental health and novel technologies. Our model covers the following stages: deciding on the fit for co‐production, recruiting participants, developing collective principles of work, running a meeting and evaluating impact. Results: We emphasize that throughout this process, researchers should take a critical stance by reflecting on whether a co‐production model fits their research scope and aims; ensuring (or aspiring to) representativeness within the group; valuing different kinds of expertise; and undertaking on‐going evaluations on the impact of the group on both the young people and the research. Conclusion: Adopting a critical and reflective attitude can increase researchers' capacity to engage youth in democratic and inclusive ways, and to produce research outputs that are aligned with the target audience's needs and priorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Co‐production of research into public health services has yet to demonstrate tangible benefits. Few studies have reported the impact of co‐production on research outcomes. The previous studies of organ donation have identified challenges in engaging with public organizations responsible, gaining ethical approval for sensitive studies with the recently bereaved and difficulty in recruiting bereaved family members who were approached about organ donation. Objective: To address these challenges, we designed the first large co‐productive observational study to evaluate implementation of a new system of organ donation in Wales. This paper outlines the co‐productive strategies that were designed to overcome known methodological challenges and reports what impact they had on resolving these challenges. Design: Two‐year co‐produced study with multiple stakeholders with the specific intention of maximizing engagement with the National Health Service arm in Wales responsible for organ donation, and recruitment of bereaved family members whose perspectives are essential but commonly absent from studies. Setting and participants: NHS Blood and Transplant, Welsh Government and multiple patient and public representatives who served as co‐productive partners with the research team. Results: Co‐productive strategies enabled a smooth passage through four different ethics processes within the 10‐week time frame, family member recruitment targets to be surpassed, sharing of routinely collected data on 100% of potential organ donor cases and development of further research capacity and capability in a critically under researched area. Discussion and conclusion: Although expensive and time consuming, co‐production was effective and added value to research processes and study outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research funding bodies have significantly increased emphasis on the need for public involvement in research with the requirement to evidence effective methods and approaches to achieving this. Specific definitions and approaches within published research remain tokenistic and vague. Objective: The concept analysis explores and clarifies the nature and meaning of public involvement in health and social sciences research and identifies operational definitions which can be used to guide, develop and evaluate public involvement in research activity. Search strategy: A literature search was conducted using online databases. Systematic literature reviews and broader studies on the impact of PPI were included as was grey literature such as guidance from INVOLVE and research funding bodies. Limits were set to papers published in the last 10 years and in the English language. A concept analysis framework adapted from Rodgers (Concept Development in Nursing: Foundations, Techniques and Applications. London, UK: Saunders; 2000) and Walker and Avant (Strategies for Theory construction in Nursing. Boston, MA: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2005) was applied. Main results: Five operational definitions were developed from the concept analysis: undefined involvement; targeted consultation; embedded consultation; co‐production; and user‐led research. Typical examples of each approach were identified from the literature. Defining attributes included having clear and agreed meaning and purpose for any involvement; reciprocal relationships; and value and recognition of the expertise of all those involved. Conclusions: The authors argue the need for researchers to more explicitly incorporate and evaluate details of approaches used. Impact of public involvement on a research study should be identified when reporting on findings to prevent tokenistic practices where involvement is viewed as secondary to the core research process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]