Search

Background: Research indicates that successful co‐creation depends on a shared understanding of co‐creation and its related concepts. However, it also shows that, in practice, views on co‐creation and how to do it differ. This study aims to explore how patient innovators and researchers in a partnership research programme understand co‐creation and how this understanding changes over time. Methods: An explorative longitudinal qualitative study was conducted with the 'Patients in the Driver's Seat' partnership research programme. Fifty‐eight interviews were performed and analysed using a reflexive thematic approach. Findings: Four different ways of understanding co‐creation were identified. These can be instrumentally conceptualized as themes using the inputs‐process‐outputs model: (1) combining different perspectives, experiences and backgrounds (inputs); (2) deliberately dynamic and exploratory (process); (3) striving for equity, not equality (process); and (4) diverse value creation, tangible and intangible (outputs). Together, these themes represent the varied understandings of co‐creation among partnership programme members. Conclusions: Our study of patient innovators and researchers identified four distinct yet complementary understandings of co‐creation. The study suggests that co‐creation is the sum of its essential components, which can be divided into inputs, process, and outputs. Patient or Public Contribution: This study, and the partnership programme it explored, aims to improve the relevance of research for patients and informal caregivers through an improved understanding of the concept of co‐creation within research on patient innovation. All patient innovators involved in the programme were invited, as interviewees and researchers, to contribute to the study design and data analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Partnership research practices involving various stakeholder groups are gaining ground. Yet, the research community is still exploring how to effectively coproduce research together. This study describes (a) key programme developments in the creation of a 6‐year partnership research programme in Sweden, and (b) explores the hopes, expectations, and experiences of patient innovators (i.e., individuals with lived experience as patients or caregivers who drive health innovations) and researchers involved in the programme during the first years. Methods: We conducted a prospective longitudinal qualitative study spanning the first 2 years of the programme. Data consisted of meeting protocols and interviews with 14 researchers and 6 patient innovators; 39 interviews were carried out in three evenly‐spaced rounds. We identified significant events and discussion themes in the meeting protocols and analyzed the interviews using thematic analysis, applying a cross‐sectional recurrent approach to track changes over time. Findings: Meeting protocols revealed how several partnership practices (e.g., programme management team, task forces, role description document) were cocreated, supporting the sharing of power and responsibilities among programme members. Based on the analysis of interviews, we created three themes: (1) paving the path to a better tomorrow, reflecting programme members' high expectations; (2) going on a road trip together, reflecting experiences of finding new roles and learning how to cocreate; (3) finding the tempo: from talking to doing, reflecting experiences of managing challenges and becoming productive as a team. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that sharing, respecting, and acknowledging each other's experiences and concerns helps build mutual trust and shape partnership practices. High expectations beyond research productivity suggest that we need to consider outcomes at different levels, from the individual to society, when evaluating the impact of partnership research. Patient or Public Contribution: The research team included members with formal experiences as researchers and members with lived experiences of being a patient or informal caregiver. One patient innovator coauthored this paper and contributed to all aspects of the research, including the design of the study; production of data (as interviewee); interpretation of findings; and drafting the manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]