Co-Producing and Co-Designing

Robert, Glenn; Locock, Louise; Williams, Oli; Cornwell, Jocelyn; Donetto, Sara; Goodrich, Joanna

doi:10.1017/9781009237024

Cited by 47 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is also perhaps noteworthy that the involvement of patients and carers is documented in few of the published examples considered in this Element. As discussed in the Element on co-producing and co-designing, 1 the participatory turn in thinking on improvement emphasises the importance of patients' and carers' perspectives to formulating interventions that result in improvements that matter to them.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Collaboration-Based Approaches

Martin

Dixon‐Woods

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Collaboration-based approaches to healthcare improvement attract much attention. They involve networks of people coming together to cooperate around a common interest, with shared goals of improving care and mutual learning. Longstanding examples of collaborative approaches have been associated with some success in improving outcomes and reducing harm. The evidence for their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, however, remains inconsistent and contingent on the circumstances in which they are deployed and how they are used for what purpose. Several models for collaboration have been developed, varying in structure, format, and balance between internal leadership and external control. The authors focus on two approaches: quality improvement collaboratives and communities of practice. They explore evidence of their impact on health outcomes, and evidence about how best to organise and implement collaboration-based approaches. Using examples of more and less successful collaborations, they offer guidance on the key challenges involved in using collaboration-based approaches to improve healthcare. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some other approaches focus on the contribution of patients and carersfor example, those addressed in the Element on coproducing and co-designing. 1 2 What Are Collaboration-Based Approaches?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaboration-Based Approaches

Martin

Dixon‐Woods

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…57 Further discussion of co-production can be found in the Element on co-producing and co-designing. 58…”

Section: Operational Research May Offer a Naïve World Viewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Operational Research Approaches

Utley

Crowe

Pagel

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Operational research is a collection of modelling techniques used to structure, analyse, and solve problems related to the design and operation of complex human systems. While many argue that operational research should play a key role in improving healthcare services, staff may be largely unaware of its potential applications. This Element explores operational research's wartime origins and introduce several approaches that operational researchers use to help healthcare organisations: address well-defined decision problems; account for multiple stakeholder perspectives; and describe how system performance may be impacted by changing the configuration or operation of services. The authors draw on examples that illustrate the valuable perspective that operational research brings to improvement initiatives and the challenges of implementing and scaling operational research solutions. They discuss how operational researchers are working to surmount these problems and suggest further research to help operational researchers have greater beneficial impact in healthcare improvement. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.

show abstract

“…Growing recognition by governments internationally of the need to involve the perspectives of people using public services when designing, delivering and improving those services has been described as a Participatory Zeitgeist reflecting the “spirit of our time” [ 1 , 2 (p247)]. Researchers and designers have developed various approaches drawn from different disciplines and using different labels (for example, codesign, cocreation, coproduction) that align with principles in the citizen engagement literature [ 3 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adopting, implementing and assimilating coproduced health and social care innovations involving structurally vulnerable populations: findings from a longitudinal, multiple case study design in Canada, Scotland and Sweden

Mulvale,

Green,

Robert

et al. 2024

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Innovations in coproduction are shaping public service reform in diverse contexts around the world. Although many innovations are local, others have expanded and evolved over time. We know very little, however, about the process of implementation and evolution of coproduction. The purpose of this study was to explore the adoption, implementation and assimilation of three approaches to the coproduction of public services with structurally vulnerable groups. Methods We conducted a 4 year longitudinal multiple case study (2019–2023) of three coproduced public service innovations involving vulnerable populations: ESTHER in Jönköping Region, Sweden involving people with multiple complex needs (Case 1); Making Recovery Real in Dundee, Scotland with people who have serious mental illness (Case 2); and Learning Centres in Manitoba, Canada (Case 3), also involving people with serious mental illness. Data sources included 14 interviews with strategic decision-makers and a document analysis to understand the history and contextual factors relating to each case. Three frameworks informed the case study protocol, semi-structured interview guides, data extraction, deductive coding and analysis: the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, the Diffusion of Innovation model and Lozeau’s Compatibility Gaps to understand assimilation. Results The adoption of coproduction involving structurally vulnerable populations was a notable evolution of existing improvement efforts in Cases 1 and 3, while impetus by an external change agency, existing collaborative efforts among community organizations, and the opportunity to inform a new municipal mental health policy sparked adoption in Case 2. In all cases, coproduced innovation centred around a central philosophy that valued lived experience on an equal basis with professional knowledge in coproduction processes. This philosophical orientation offered flexibility and adaptability to local contexts, thereby facilitating implementation when compared with more defined programming. According to the informants, efforts to avoid co-optation risks were successful, resulting in the assimilation of new mindsets and coproduction processes, with examples of how this had led to transformative change. Conclusions In exploring innovations in coproduction with structurally vulnerable groups, our findings suggest several additional considerations when applying existing theoretical frameworks. These include the philosophical nature of the innovation, the need to study the evolution of the innovation itself as it emerges over time, greater attention to partnered processes as disruptors to existing power structures and an emphasis on driving transformational change in organizational cultures.

show abstract

Co-Producing and Co-Designing

Cited by 47 publications

References 79 publications

Collaboration-Based Approaches

Collaboration-Based Approaches

Operational Research Approaches

Adopting, implementing and assimilating coproduced health and social care innovations involving structurally vulnerable populations: findings from a longitudinal, multiple case study design in Canada, Scotland and Sweden

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About