Co-creation of new knowledge: Good fortune or good management?

Abstract

Background Potential solutions to bridging the research practice gap include collaborative frameworks and models. Yet there is little evidence demonstrating their application in practice. In addressing this knowledge gap, this in-depth case study explored how the co-creation of new knowledge framework and its four collaborative processes (co-ideation, co-design, co-implementation, and co-evaluation) are utilised to support people who had attempted suicide through an Australian psychoeducational program known as Eclipse. Methods Using a case study design and a thematic analysis methodology, multiple sources of qualitative data (collaborative group discussion, personal communications) were analysed inductively and deductively to examine the implementation of co-creation and explore the perspectives of researchers and stakeholders about co-creation and collaborative relationships. Results Three broad themes were identified: (1) understanding the language and practice of co-creation, (2) perception of trust formation, and (3) the value of co-creation opportunities. Ultimately, implementing co-creation with or between researchers, industry and people with lived experience requires trust, reciprocity, good fortune, and good management. While implementing co-creation, the co-creation framework was revised to include additional elements identified as missing from the initially proposed framework. Conclusion Co-creation of new knowledge poses many challenges to researchers and stakeholders, particularly regarding its “messiness” and non-linear approach to implementation and evaluation. However, as this case study demonstrates, it has the potential to become an alternative framework of best practice for public health interventions in third sector organisations, most notably as it eliminates the often-lengthy gap reported between research evidence and translation into practice. The research highlights the need for co-creation to further study its effectiveness in integrating research and service delivery to generate new knowledge. This may lead to a cultural and behavioural change in the service provider’s approach to research, offering better outcomes for providers, clients, policymakers, universities, and funders.

Community-based participatory-research through co-design: supporting collaboration from all sides of disability

“…Drawn from these findings, the authors identified six main points which form the basis of this discussion. These include (1) the fact that the necessary time and resources required to commit to co-design process completion adequately were underestimated at the outset, (2) there is a need to support the health, well-being and dignity of lived experience expert participants, (3) academic ethical processes have yet to adapt to address more participatory and integrated research methods, (4) strategies used to foster strong collaborative relationships across a diverse group were valued by all participants, (5) better delineation between terminologies such as codesign and community-based participatory research or patient and public involvement would improve the clarity of research methods and author intent and, (6) broader non-traditional impacts that participatory research can create should be better quantified and valued in the context of research impact. Each point will now be discussed in further detail.…”

“…Co-production was chosen as the planning method for the study, as the inclusion of community members (Rocky Bay Lived experience experts and Staff ) in each step of Fig. 1 Summary of telepractice co-design project structure [1] the research process would increase buy-in and make the research more likely to meet their needs [5]. An example of co-planning (part of co-production) includes the study steering committee, with a lived experience expert, clinician and project sponsor representatives collaborating on the selection of study aim, methods and recruitment processes.…”

“…By contrast, the involvement of consumers in their care [4] has been included as part of accreditation processes [4] and shown to improve outcomes and satisfaction. For research to sufficiently translate into practice, consumers and providers should be involved actively, not passively [4,5].…”

“…Multiple articles provide high-level descriptions of workshops or briefly mention the co-design process [13,[17][18][19]. Pearce et al [5] include an in-depth table of activities across an entire co-creation process, however within each part i.e., co-design, limited descriptions were included. A recent publication by Marwaa et al [20] provides an indepth description of two workshops focused on product development, and Tariq et al [21] provides details of the process of co-designing a research agenda.…”

Patient participation in end-stage kidney disease care: variation over time and effects of staff-directed interventions - a quasi-experimental study

“…The support offered to the SDG and FIG sites was framed to bridge potential gaps between current practice and optimal conditions for person-centred patient participation [ 29 ]. In addition, the FIG strategy was incorporated in the study to test whether local support (by means of IFs being trained) would trump dissemination of a support package for managers.…”