Research Coproduction: How Can Coproduction Teams Increase Traffic on the Pathway to Impact?; Comment on “Research Coproduction: An Underused Pathway to Impact”

Document Type : Commentary

Authors

1 The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia

2 Department of Physiotherapy, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia

3 Physiotherapy, Western Health, St Albans, VIC, Australia

4 Physiotherapy, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

5 Independent Researcher, Adelaide, SA, Australia

6 College of Nursing and Health Science, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia

Abstract

The editorial by Rycroft-Malone and colleagues Research Coproduction: An Underused Pathway to Impact, explores the challenges and opportunities of coproduction to deliver research with impact. We, apply our experience as coproducers of research to present strategies that may accelerate uptake and increase traffic on the road to research impact. In doing so, we emphasise the importance of consistent terminology around coproduction, reporting impact metrics, diversity in research partnerships, and the careful consideration of researcher partners. Further, our commentary suggests practical strategies for teams to align their work with the principles of coproduction, and opportunities to support systems-level change to facilitate coproduction.

Keywords

References

  1. Penfield T, Baker MJ, Scoble R, Wykes MC. Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: a review. Res Eval. 2013;23(1):21-32. doi:1093/reseval/rvt021
  2. Brijnath B, Croy S, Sabates J, et al. Including ethnic minorities in dementia research: recommendations from a scoping review. Alzheimers Dement (N Y). 2022;8(1):e12222. doi:1002/trc2.12222
  3. Ramage ER, Burke M, Galloway M, et al. Fit for purpose. Co-production of complex behavioural interventions. A practical guide and exemplar of co-producing a telehealth-delivered exercise intervention for people with stroke. Health Res Policy Syst. 2022;20(1):2. doi:1186/s12961-021-00790-2
  4. Worsley JD, McKeown M, Wilson T, Corcoran R. A qualitative evaluation of coproduction of research: 'if you do it properly, you will get turbulence'. Health Expect. 2022;25(5):2034-2042. doi:1111/hex.13261
  5. Ludwig C, Graham ID, Gifford W, Lavoie J, Stacey D. Partnering with frail or seriously ill patients in research: a systematic review. Res Involv Engagem. 2020;6(1):52. doi:1186/s40900-020-00225-2
  6. Lynch EA, Booth B, O'Malley A, et al. How to work effectively with stroke survivors throughout the research process. Stroke. 2024;55(9):e258-e261. doi:1161/strokeaha.124.047193
  7. Oliver K, Kothari A, Mays N. The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research? Health Res Policy Syst. 2019;17(1):33. doi:1186/s12961-019-0432-3
  8. Bird M, Ouellette C, Whitmore C, et al. Preparing for patient partnership: a scoping review of patient partner engagement and evaluation in research. Health Expect. 2020;23(3):523-539. doi:1111/hex.13040
  9. Rycroft-Malone J, I DG, Kothari A, McCutcheon C. Research coproduction: an underused pathway to impact. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2024;13:8461. doi:34172/ijhpm.2024.8461
  10. Yeung E, Scodras S, Salbach NM, Kothari A, Graham ID. Identifying competencies for integrated knowledge translation: a Delphi study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):1181. doi:1186/s12913-021-07107-7
  11. National Institute for Health and Care Research. Starting Out Guide - Why and How to Get Involved in Research. 2024. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/Starting-Out-Guide/30145. Accessed September 13, 2024.
  12. Stroke Foundation. Working Effectively with People with Lived Experience to Design, Conduct and Promote Stroke Research. 2022. https://informme.org.au/learning-modules/working-effectively-with-people-with-lived-experience-to-design-conduct-and-promote-stroke-research. Accessed September 13, 2024.
  13. Cunningham C, Mercury M. Coproducing health research with Indigenous peoples. Nat Med. 2023;29(11):2722-2730. doi:1038/s41591-023-02588-x
  14. Mendell J, Richardson L. Integrated knowledge translation to strengthen public policy research: a case study from experimental research on income assistance receipt among people who use drugs. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):153. doi:1186/s12889-020-10121-9
  15. Radl-Karimi C, Nicolaisen A, Sodemann M, Batalden P, von Plessen C. Under what circumstances can immigrant patients and healthcare professionals co-produce health? - an interpretive scoping review. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2020;15(1):1838052. doi:1080/17482631.2020.1838052
  16. Cassidy CE, Shin HD, Ramage E, et al. Trainee-led research using an integrated knowledge translation or other research partnership approaches: a scoping reviews. Health Res Policy Syst. 2021;19(1):135. doi:1186/s12961-021-00784-0
  17. Wróblewska MN. Research impact evaluation and academic discourse. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2021;8(1):58. doi:1057/s41599-021-00727-8
  18. Said CM, Ramage E, McDonald CE, et al. Co-designing resources for rehabilitation via telehealth for people with moderate to severe disability post stroke. Physiotherapy. 2024;123:109-117. doi:1016/j.physio.2024.02.006
  19. Agency for Clinical Innovation. Co-Design Toolkit. https://aci.health.nsw.gov.au/projects/co-design. Accessed September 13, 2024.
  20. Messiha K, Chinapaw MJM, Ket H, et al. Systematic review of contemporary theories used for co-creation, co-design and co-production in public health. J Public Health (Oxf). 2023;45(3):723-737. doi:1093/pubmed/fdad046
  21. Nordin A, Kjellstrom S, Robert G, Masterson D, Areskoug Josefsson K. Measurement and outcomes of co-production in health and social care: a systematic review of empirical studies. BMJ Open. 2023;13(9):e073808. doi:1136/bmjopen-2023-073808

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 15 September 2024
  • Revise Date: 25 October 2024
  • Accept Date: 27 October 2024
  • First Publish Date: 28 October 2024

Share

How to cite

Statistics