School of Medicine and Psychology, The Australian National University, Ngunnawal and Ngambri Country, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Affiliated along my own idiosyncratic lines, Wurundjeri Country, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Health Expect. 2024 Aug;27(4):e14159. doi: 10.1111/hex.14159.
In 2020, surging cases of COVID-19 meant that health services had to plan for crisis-level triage. In the Australian Capital Territory, the Clinical Health Emergency Coordination Centre sought to develop a triage policy in collaboration with a range of consumer, carer and community groups. This study aims to map the collaborative development of the COVID-19 ICU triage policy onto the principles of co-production.
Interviews were conducted with facilitators, members of advocacy or consumer groups and clinicians who were involved in the development of the triage policy. Interviews were thematically analysed using both theory- and data-driven approaches to, respectively, draw on the theoretical framework of co-production, and to explore participants' perspectives relevant to but beyond the scope of this theoretical framework.
The findings suggest that at each stage of the initiative, there were ways in which the principles of co-production were met, and ways in which they were not met. One of the fundamental concerns that arose was about whether trying to solve a problem based on resources was compatible with a solution based on human rights.
Literature about co-production has been critiqued for being limited to aspirational concerns, or implying co-production is easily achievable. The current study contributes to existing research through the application of the theoretical framework of co-production and exploring ways its aims were met and not met within a system-level collaboration developing a high-stakes health policy.
This study has been conducted and written by researchers working from lived experience perspectives, and other researchers working from traditionally mainstream health disciplines, including psychology and medicine. Further, the study is about patient and public involvement in the development of a health policy. Thus it both embodies and is about non-tokenistic collaboration between people with lived experience and other health professionals.
2020 年,COVID-19 病例激增,意味着卫生服务部门必须为危机级别的分诊做好规划。在澳大利亚首都地区,临床卫生应急协调中心试图与一系列消费者、护理人员和社区团体合作制定分诊政策。本研究旨在将 COVID-19 ICU 分诊政策的协作制定过程映射到共同生产的原则上。
对参与分诊政策制定的协调员、倡导或消费者团体成员以及临床医生进行了访谈。使用理论和数据驱动的方法对访谈进行了主题分析,分别利用共同生产的理论框架,以及探讨参与者对该理论框架的观点,以探索参与者的观点。
研究结果表明,在倡议的每个阶段,都有一些方法符合共同生产的原则,也有一些方法不符合共同生产的原则。出现的一个根本问题是,试图根据资源解决问题是否与基于人权的解决方案相兼容。
关于共同生产的文献一直受到批评,因为它仅限于有抱负的问题,或者暗示共同生产很容易实现。本研究通过应用共同生产的理论框架,并在一个制定高风险卫生政策的系统层面合作中探索其目标的实现和未实现的方式,为现有研究做出了贡献。
这项研究是由具有生活经验的研究人员和其他具有心理学和医学等传统主流健康学科背景的研究人员共同进行和撰写的。此外,这项研究是关于患者和公众参与卫生政策的制定。因此,它既是具有生活经验的人和其他卫生专业人员之间非象征性合作的体现,也是这种合作的体现。