School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Faculty of Design, OCAD University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
BMJ Open. 2020 Nov 3;10(11):e038339. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038339.
'Codesign' and associated terms such as 'coproduction' or 'patient engagement', are increasingly common in the health research literature, due to an increased emphasis on the importance of ensuring that research related to service/systems development is meaningful to end-users. However, there continues to be a lack of clarity regarding the key principles and practices of codesign, and wide variation in the extent to which service users are meaningfully engaged in the process. These issues are particularly acute when end-users include populations who have significant health and healthcare disparities that are linked to a range of intersecting vulnerabilities (eg, poverty, language barriers, age, disability, minority status, stigmatised conditions). The purpose of this paper is to prompt critical reflection on the nature of codesign research with vulnerable populations, including key issues to consider in the initial planning phases, the implementation process, and final outputs. Risks and tensions will be identified in each phase of the process, followed by a tool to foster reflexivity in codesign processes to address these issues.
“共同设计”和相关术语,如“共同生产”或“患者参与”,由于越来越强调确保与服务/系统开发相关的研究对最终用户有意义的重要性,在健康研究文献中越来越常见。然而,对于共同设计的关键原则和实践仍然缺乏明确性,并且在服务用户在多大程度上有意义地参与该过程方面存在很大差异。当最终用户包括那些存在与一系列相互交织的脆弱性(例如贫困、语言障碍、年龄、残疾、少数群体地位、污名化状况)相关的重大健康和医疗保健差距的人群时,这些问题尤其严重。本文的目的是促使对弱势群体的共同设计研究的性质进行批判性反思,包括在初始规划阶段、实施过程和最终结果中需要考虑的关键问题。在每个过程阶段都会确定风险和紧张局势,然后提供一个工具来促进共同设计过程中的反思性,以解决这些问题。