An economic framework for transitioning to capacity building

Baranick, Eric; Baird, Aaron; Vinze, Ajay

doi:10.1080/17441692.2014.964745

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, if co-creating an Exergame for children, three groups of actors who are required to provide their expertise include: academic researchers (expertise on the health problem and behaviour change techniques), children (expertise on their own needs and preferences) and computer game developers (expertise on potential game play techniques that can be used). Up-skilling can increase the capacity and capability of the co-creators [62] and potentially result in the development of more innovative and meaningful solutions [19].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Framework, principles and recommendations for utilising participatory methodologies in the co-creation and evaluation of public health interventions

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plain English summaryBackground: Society has to cope with a large burden of health issues. There is need to find solutions to prevent diseases and help individuals live healthier lifestyles. Individual needs and circumstances vary greatly and one size fit all solutions do not tend to work well. More tailored solutions centred on individuals’ needs and circumstances can be developed in collaboration with these individuals. This process, known as co-creation, has shown promise but it requires guiding principles to improve its effectiveness. The aim of this study was to identify a key set of principles and recommendations for co-creating public health interventions.Methods: These principles were collaboratively developed through analysing a set of case studies targeting different health behaviours (such as reducing sitting and improving strength and balance) in different groups of people (such as adolescent schoolgirls and older adults living in the community).Results: The key principles of co-creation are presented in four stages: Planning (what is the purpose of the co-creation; and who should be involved?); Conducting (what activities can be used during co-creation; and how to ensure buy-in and commitment?); Evaluating (how do we know the process and the outcome are valid and effective?) and Reporting (how to report the findings?). Three models are proposed to show how co-created solutions can be scaled up to a population level.Conclusions: These recommendations aim to help the co-creation of public health interventions by providing a framework and governance to guide the process.Abstract Background: Due to the chronic disease burden on society, there is a need for preventive public health interventions to stimulate society towards a healthier lifestyle. To deal with the complex variability between individual lifestyles and settings, collaborating with end-users to develop interventions tailored to their unique circumstances has been suggested as a potential way to improve effectiveness and adherence. Co-creation of public health interventions using participatory methodologies has shown promise but lacks a framework to make this process systematic. The aim of this paper was to identify and set key principles and recommendations for systematically applying participatory methodologies to co-create and evaluate public health interventions. Methods: These principles and recommendations were derived using an iterative reflection process, combining key learning from published literature in addition to critical reflection on three case studies conducted by research groups in three European institutions, all of whom have expertise in co-creating public health interventions using different participatory methodologies. Results: Key principles and recommendations for using participatory methodologies in public health intervention co-creation are presented for the stages of: Planning (framing the aim of the study and identifying the appropriate sampling strategy); Conducting (defining the procedure, in addition to manifesting...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Framework, principles and recommendations for utilising participatory methodologies in the co-creation and evaluation of public health interventions

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Power remains an issue (but is generally less salient) in technology co‐design, in which the community partner's primary role is that of technology consumer (and, depending on the business model, perhaps customer), and in value co‐creation, in which the main role of the community stakeholder(s) is “partner(s) in the value chain.” In each case, there are inherent power differentials, and the end user will need advocacy support and power‐sharing governance arrangements to participate meaningfully in the co‐creation process. Baranick and colleagues, writing in the global health literature, offer a model for transitioning from CBPR (in which the community partner is depicted as lacking the capacity to assimilate knowledge and handle operational activities on its own) to co‐creation of value (in which the community partner has matured in absorptive capacity and dynamic capability, and is hence in a stronger position to negotiate) …”

Section: Mode 2: From “Knowledge Translation” To “Knowledge Production”mentioning

confidence: 99%

Achieving Research Impact Through Co‐creation in Community‐Based Health Services: Literature Review and Case Study

Greenhalgh

Jackson

Shaw

et al. 2016

The Milbank Quarterly

796

836

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Policy Points: Co‐creation—collaborative knowledge generation by academics working alongside other stakeholders—is an increasingly popular approach to aligning research and service development.It has potential for “moving beyond the ivory towers” to deliver significant societal impact via dynamic, locally adaptive community‐academic partnerships.Principles of successful co‐creation include a systems perspective, a creative approach to research focused on improving human experience, and careful attention to governance and process.If these principles are not followed, co‐creation efforts may fail. ContextCo‐creation—collaborative knowledge generation by academics working alongside other stakeholders—reflects a “Mode 2” relationship (knowledge production rather than knowledge translation) between universities and society. Co‐creation is widely believed to increase research impact.MethodsWe undertook a narrative review of different models of co‐creation relevant to community‐based health services. We contrasted their diverse disciplinary roots and highlighted their common philosophical assumptions, principles of success, and explanations for failures. We applied these to an empirical case study of a community‐based research‐service partnership led by the Centre of Research Excellence in Quality and Safety in Integrated Primary‐Secondary Care at the University of Queensland, Australia.FindingsCo‐creation emerged independently in several fields, including business studies (“value co‐creation”), design science (“experience‐based co‐design”), computer science (“technology co‐design”), and community development (“participatory research”). These diverse models share some common features, which were also evident in the case study. Key success principles included (1) a systems perspective (assuming emergence, local adaptation, and nonlinearity); (2) the framing of research as a creative enterprise with human experience at its core; and (3) an emphasis on process (the framing of the program, the nature of relationships, and governance and facilitation arrangements, especially the style of leadership and how conflict is managed). In both the literature review and the case study, co‐creation “failures” could often be tracked back to abandoning (or never adopting) these principles. All co‐creation models made strong claims for significant and sustainable societal impacts as a result of the adaptive and developmental research process; these were illustrated in the case study.ConclusionsCo‐creation models have high potential for societal impact but depend critically on key success principles. To capture the nonlinear chains of causation in the co‐creation pathway, impact metrics must reflect the dynamic nature and complex interdependencies of health research systems and address processes as well as outcomes.

show abstract

“…Building individual capacity by upskilling Co-creators -the older adults were upskilled by the academic researchers on concepts such as behaviour change theory. Knowledge sharing such as this can enhance creative performance when developing something new (Kristensson et al, 2004) and may enhance the capability of end-users (Baranick et al, 2015).…”

Section: Co-creation Workhopsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-creating a tailored public health intervention to reduce older adults’ sedentary behaviour

Leask

Sandlund

Skelton

et al. 2017

Health Education Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The increasing health care costs associated with an ageing population and chronic disease burden are largely attributable to modifiable lifestyle factors that are complex and vary between individuals and settings. Traditional approaches to promoting healthy lifestyles have so far had limited success. Recently, co-creating public health interventions with end-users has been advocated to provide more effective and sustainable solutions. The aim of this study was to document and evaluate the co-creation of a public health intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour in older adults. Design: Community-dwelling older adults ( N = 11, mean age = 74 years) and academic researchers attended 10 interactive co-creation workshops together. Setting: Workshops took place on university campus and the co-creators completed fieldwork tasks outside the workshops. Method: Workshops were informed by the Participatory and Appreciative Action and Reflection methodology. Data were collected using field notes, video recording and worksheet tasks. Analysis was conducted using a qualitative content analysis approach. Results: The co-creators developed a tailored intervention delivered through a mode congruent with older adults’ lives. Key elements of the intervention included (1) education on sedentary behaviour, (2) resources to interrupt sedentary behaviour, (3) self-monitoring, (4) action planning and (5) evaluating the benefits of interrupting sedentary behaviour. Conclusion: Co-creation is a feasible approach to develop public health interventions; however, it is limited by the lack of a systematic framework to guide the process. Future work should aim to develop principles and recommendations to ensure co-creation can be conducted in a more scientific and reproducible way. The effectiveness and scalability of the intervention should be assessed.

show abstract

An economic framework for transitioning to capacity building

Cited by 7 publications

References 44 publications

Framework, principles and recommendations for utilising participatory methodologies in the co-creation and evaluation of public health interventions

Framework, principles and recommendations for utilising participatory methodologies in the co-creation and evaluation of public health interventions

Achieving Research Impact Through Co‐creation in Community‐Based Health Services: Literature Review and Case Study

Co-creating a tailored public health intervention to reduce older adults’ sedentary behaviour

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About