NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Yorkshire and Humber, Bradford, United Kingdom.
Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford, United Kingdom.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2022 Apr 2;20(1):36. doi: 10.1186/s12961-022-00838-x.
Interest in and use of co-production in healthcare services and research is growing. Previous reviews have summarized co-production approaches in use, collated outcomes and effects of co-production, and focused on replicability and reporting, but none have critically reflected on how co-production in applied health research might be evolving and the implications of this for future research. We conducted this scoping review to systematically map recent literature on co-production in applied health research in the United Kingdom to inform co-production practice and guide future methodological research.
This scoping review was performed using established methods. We created an evidence map to show the extent and nature of the literature on co-production and applied health research, based on which we described the characteristics of the articles and scope of the literature and summarized conceptualizations of co-production and how it was implemented. We extracted implications for co-production practice or future research and conducted a content analysis of this information to identify lessons for the practice of co-production and themes for future methodological research.
Nineteen articles reporting co-produced complex interventions and 64 reporting co-production in applied health research met the inclusion criteria. Lessons for the practice of co-production and requirements for co-production to become more embedded in organizational structures included (1) the capacity to implement co-produced interventions, (2) the skill set needed for co-production, (3) multiple levels of engagement and negotiation, and (4) funding and institutional arrangements for meaningful co-production. Themes for future research on co-production included (1) who to involve in co-production and how, (2) evaluating outcomes of co-production, (3) the language and practice of co-production, (4) documenting costs and challenges, and (5) vital components or best practice for co-production.
Researchers are operationalizing co-production in various ways, often without the necessary financial and organizational support required and the right conditions for success. We argue for accepting the diversity in approaches to co-production, call on researchers to be clearer in their reporting of these approaches, and make suggestions for what researchers should record. To support co-production of research, changes to entrenched academic and scientific practices are needed. Protocol registration details: The protocol for the scoping review was registered with protocols.io on 19 October 2021: https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.by7epzje .
人们对医疗服务和研究中的共同生产的兴趣和使用正在增加。以前的综述总结了正在使用的共同生产方法,整理了共同生产的结果和效果,并侧重于可复制性和报告,但没有批判性地反思应用健康研究中的共同生产可能如何发展,以及这对未来研究的意义。我们进行了这项范围综述,以系统地绘制英国应用健康研究中共同生产的最新文献图谱,为共同生产实践提供信息,并指导未来的方法学研究。
本范围综述使用既定方法进行。我们创建了一个证据图谱,以展示关于共同生产和应用健康研究的文献的范围和性质,在此基础上,我们描述了文章的特征和文献的范围,并总结了共同生产的概念化及其实施方式。我们提取了对共同生产实践或未来研究的启示,并对这些信息进行了内容分析,以确定共同生产实践的经验教训和未来方法学研究的主题。
有 19 篇文章报告了共同生产的复杂干预措施,64 篇文章报告了应用健康研究中的共同生产符合纳入标准。对共同生产实践的启示和共同生产在组织结构中更深入的要求包括(1)实施共同生产干预的能力,(2)共同生产所需的技能集,(3)多层次的参与和协商,以及(4)为有意义的共同生产提供资金和机构安排。未来共同生产研究的主题包括(1)谁参与共同生产以及如何参与,(2)评估共同生产的结果,(3)共同生产的语言和实践,(4)记录成本和挑战,以及(5)共同生产的重要组成部分或最佳实践。
研究人员正在以各种方式实施共同生产,通常没有必要的财务和组织支持,也没有成功的适当条件。我们主张接受共同生产方法的多样性,呼吁研究人员在报告这些方法时更加明确,并对研究人员应该记录什么提出建议。为了支持研究的共同生产,需要对根深蒂固的学术和科学实践进行改变。
范围综述的方案于 2021 年 10 月 19 日在 protocols.io 上注册:https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.by7epzje 。