A Co-production Values and Principles Compass to Guide Along the Underused Pathway; Comment on “Research Coproduction: An Underused Pathway to Impact”

Articles in Press

Document Type : Commentary

Authors

1 The School of Health Sciences, University of Skövde, Skövde, Sweden

2 Jönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare, School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden

3 Centre for Health and Development, University of Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent, UK

4 Patient and Public Partner, Whitley Bay, UK

Abstract

Co-production in research is not only encouraged but rapidly becoming a required consideration in health research funding. The challenge in defining co-production continues and the misapplication of co-production has led to growing calls for an emphasis on operationalising the values and principles of co-production in research. This commentary considers Rycroft-Malone and colleagues’ key messages about co-production being more than a set of activities, and reflects on the challenges within the academic sector when applying co-production. The Coproducing Meaningful Principles and Sharing Standards (Co-MPASS) tool offers a way to consider co-production values in the early stages of collaboration. Rather than a stand-alone tool for co-production, it is intended to be used with established methods and published toolboxes to emphasise co-production principles through reflection, conversation, documentation, and learning.

Keywords

References

  1. Masterson D, Areskoug Josefsson K, Robert G, Nylander E, Kjellström S. Mapping definitions of co-production and co-design in health and social care: a systematic scoping review providing lessons for the future. Health Expect. 2022;25(3):902-913. doi:1111/hex.13470
  2. Bragge P. Co-design: Moving towards authenticity. Australasian Journal on Ageing. 2022;41(4):484-486. doi:1111/ajag.13155
  3. O'Mara-Eves A, Laidlaw L, Vigurs C, Candy B, Collis A, Kneale D. The Value of Co-Production Research Project: A Rapid Critical Review of the Evidence. 2022. https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/5ffee76a01a63b6b7213780c/63595629676ab598f0e6bf44_ValueCoPro_RapidReviewFull31Oct22.pdf.
  4. Norström AV, Cvitanovic C, Löf MF, et al. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat Sustain. 2020;3(3):182-190. doi:1038/s41893-019-0448-2
  5. Rycroft-Malone J, Graham ID, Kothari A, McCutcheon C. Research coproduction: an underused pathway to impact. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2024;13:8461. doi:34172/ijhpm.2024.8461
  6. Patient Experience Library. Toolkits Mountain: How We Scaled a Mountain of Guidance on Patient and Public Involvement, and What We Saw from the Top. 2023. https://www.pslhub.org/learn/coronavirus-covid19/guidance/toolkits-mountain-patient-experience-library-september-2023-r10241/. Accessed September 29, 2024.
  7. Greenhalgh T, Hinton L, Finlay T, et al. Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co-design pilot. Health Expect. 2019;22(4):785-801. doi:1111/hex.12888
  8. Boaz A, Borst R, Kok M, O’Shea A. How far does an emphasis on stakeholder engagement and co-production in research present a threat to academic identity and autonomy? A prospective study across five European countries. Res Eval. 2021;30(3):361-369. doi:1093/reseval/rvab013
  9. Schwartz SH. An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture. 2012;2(1):11. doi:9707/2307-0919.1116
  10. Knowles SE, Allen D, Donnelly A, et al. More than a method: trusting relationships, productive tensions, and two-way learning as mechanisms of authentic co-production. Res Involv Engagem. 2021;7(1):34. doi:1186/s40900-021-00262-5
  11. Masterson D, Lindenfalk B, Kjellström S, Robert G, Ockander M. Mechanisms for co-designing and co-producing health and social care: a realist synthesis. Res Involv Engagem. 2024;10(1):103. doi:1186/s40900-024-00638-3
  12. Dunston R, Lee A, Boud D, Brodie P, Chiarella M. Co-production and health system reform – from re-imagining to re-making. Aust J Public Adm. 2009;68(1):39-52. doi:1111/j.1467-8500.2008.00608.x
  13. Co-Production Collective. Co-Production Collective Resource Library. 2022. https://resources.coproductioncollective.co.uk/. Accessed September 29, 2024.
  14. Graffigna G, Barello S, Palamenghi L, Lucchi F. "Co-production compass" (COCO): an analytical framework for monitoring patient preferences in co-production of healthcare services in mental health settings. Front Med (Lausanne). 2020;7:279. doi:3389/fmed.2020.00279
  15. Mulvale G, Miatello A, Green J, Tran M, Roussakis C, Mulvale A. A COMPASS for navigating relationships in co-production processes involving vulnerable populations. Int J Public Adm. 2021;44(9):790-802. doi:1080/01900692.2021.1903500
  16. Schneider F, Tribaldos T, Adler C, et al. Co-production of knowledge and sustainability transformations: a strategic compass for global research networks. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2021;49:127-142. doi:1016/j.cosust.2021.04.007
International Journal of Health Policy and Management

Articles in Press, Corrected Proof
Available Online from 08 December 2024

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 30 September 2024
  • Revise Date: 22 November 2024
  • Accept Date: 04 December 2024
  • First Publish Date: 08 December 2024

Share

How to cite

Statistics