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]

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]

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: Meals on Wheels (MoWs) could help adults with care and support needs continue living independently. However, many people are not aware that the service still exists in England, or that it could provide benefits beyond nutrition. Objective: Working with an existing advisory group of six people with lived experience of MoWs (an adult who uses MoWs and people who have referred a family member to MoWs), this work aimed to co‐produce knowledge translation resources (two infographics and a film) to raise awareness of MoWs and their benefits. Methods: Four participatory online workshops were held in May–July 2023, to establish perceived high‐priority themes from recent qualitative research that should be included in the resources, and preferences about message content, language, design, and how the resources should be disseminated. Findings: The most important perceived MoWs benefits that the group agreed should be included in the resources were: the importance of a nutritious meal that requires no preparation; the service's reliability/consistency; the importance of interactions in reducing social isolation, and; the ease to commence the service. The group highlighted the need for language to be nontechnical and invitational, and for images to relate to respective messages, and be inclusive of anyone who could benefit from MoWs. Several routes for dissemination were proposed, highlighting the need to disseminate to the NHS, social care organisations and community groups. Conclusion: These co‐produced resources could enhance adult social care delivery in England, as raising awareness of MoWs and their benefits could increase referral rates, so that more adults with care and support needs can benefit from the service. Patient or Public Contribution: An advisory group of people with lived experience of MoWs (users of the service and family referrers) participated in the workshops, extensively discussed the findings of earlier research, co‐produced the knowledge translation resources, and advised on the implications and future dissemination steps. The group also provided informal feedback on a draft of this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Problem‐solving skills (PSS) help to provide a systematic approach to dealing with and managing complex problems. The overall aim of this study was to assess the acceptability and feasibility of developing and adapting a prison‐based PSS workbook for adults within a medium‐ and low‐secure hospital. Method: We used the Medical Research Council framework in our participatory mixed methods study incorporating an adapted survey (to identify what types of problems people experience in secure hospitals), a series of three interactive workshops (to co‐produce two case study examples for a workbook) and we gathered feedback from patients and hospital staff on the acceptability and feasibility of the workbook. Data from the survey were used to inform the case study examples, and the feedback from patients and hospital staff was descriptively summarised and the results consolidated. Results: In total, 82 (51%) patients took part in the survey; 22 patients and 49 hospital staff provided feedback on the workbook. The survey results indicated that patients regularly experience problems while in the hospital. Patients reported problems relating to restrictions of freedom and boredom. The workshops produced two case studies for the workbooks, with mainly positive patient and staff feedback. More work is required to improve the visual representation of the characters in the case studies, the amount and content of the language and the mechanism of the intervention delivery. Conclusion: The adaptation process proved acceptable and feasible to both patients and staff. The co‐production methodology for the workbook and feedback from patients and staff was an effective way of iteratively refining the materials to ensure that they were both meaningful and acceptable to staff and patients. Subsequent work is required to develop the workbook and evaluate the feasibility of the intervention delivery, recruitment rates, uptake and adherence to the PSS using a randomised controlled trial. Patient or Public Contribution: At each stage of the project consultation with patients and/or hospital staff was involved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Patient and public involvement ( PPI) is recognized as an important component of high-quality health services research. PPI is integral to the Pre-hospital Outcomes for Evidence Based Evaluation (Ph OEBE) programme. The PPI event described in detail in this article focusses on the process of involving patients and public representatives in identifying, prioritizing and refining a set of outcome measures that can be used to support ambulance service performance measurement. Objective To obtain public feedback on little known, complex aspects of ambulance service performance measurement. Design The event was codesigned and coproduced with the Ph OEBE PPI reference group and Ph OEBE research team. The event consisted of brief researcher-led presentations, group discussions facilitated by the PPI reference group members and electronic voting. Setting and participants Data were collected from eighteen patient and public representatives who attended an event venue in Yorkshire. Results The results of the PPI event showed that this interactive format and mode of delivery was an effective method to obtain public feedback and produced a clear indication of which ambulance performance measures were most highly favoured by event participants. Discussion and conclusions The event highlighted valuable contributions the PPI reference group made to the design process, supporting participant recruitment and facilitation of group discussions. In addition, the positive team working experience of the event proved a catalyst for further improvements in PPI within the Ph OEBE project. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Personalization - most often understood in terms of granting patients greater opportunity to participate in, and make choices about, the services they receive - has become a key principle guiding reform of the English NHS. Objective This study sets out to explore the relationship between two senses of the term 'personal' within the context of personalization. Firstly, much of the policy literature equates a 'personal' service with one that is responsive to the choices of individual patients. Secondly, the term 'personal' can be thought to refer to the intimate relationships between patients and medical professionals that have typified traditional models of good practice. Methodology and Discussion I combine a review of the relevant academic and policy literature on personalization with a process of conceptual analysis to uncover three arguments, which suggest that personalization based on choice may adversely affect standards of care by eroding the qualities of intimacy at the heart of the care process. Thus, an unintended consequence of the drive for personalization may be the creation of an NHS that is, in an important sense, less personal than it once was. Conclusion Whilst personalization may deliver many potential benefits, the tension between promoting patient choice and retaining intimate professional-patient relationships ought to be taken seriously. Thus, the task of promoting choice whilst retaining intimacy represents a key policy challenge for advocates of personalization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]