Search

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]

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: 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]