What is the Co-Creation of New Knowledge? A Content Analysis and Proposed Definition for Health Interventions

Pearce, Tania; Maple, Myfanwy; Shakeshaft, Anthony; Wayland, Sarah; McKay, Kathy

doi:10.3390/ijerph17072229

Cited by 58 publications

(83 citation statements)

References 86 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…An approach to facilitate this form of collaboration is co-creation, which facilitates the development of knowledge between academics and multiple stakeholders, such as users and clinicians (Cairney and Oliver, 2017;Hickey et al, 2018). The workshop presented here fits within the broad scope of co-creation (Pearce et al, 2020), as a multi-stakeholder collaborative event, which focused on identifying opportunities based on user perspectives and needs.…”

Section: Discussion Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Co-creation and User Perspectives for Upper Limb Prosthetics

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People who either use an upper limb prosthesis and/or have used services provided by a prosthetic rehabilitation centre, experience limitations of currently available prosthetic devices. Collaboration between academia and a broad range of stakeholders, can lead to the development of solutions that address peoples' needs. By doing so, the rate of prosthetic device abandonment can decrease. Co-creation is an approach that can enable collaboration of this nature to occur throughout the research process. We present findings of a co-creation project that gained user perspectives from a user survey, and a subsequent workshop involving: people who use an upper limb prosthesis and/or have experienced care services (users), academics, industry experts, charity executives, and clinicians. The survey invited users to prioritise six themes, which academia, clinicians, and industry should focus on over the next decade. The prioritisation of the themes concluded in the following order, with the first as the most important: function, psychology, aesthetics, clinical service, collaboration, and media. Within five multi-stakeholder groups, the workshop participants discussed challenges and collaborative opportunities for each theme. Workshop groups prioritised the themes based on their discussions, to highlight opportunities for further development. Two groups chose function, one group chose clinical service, one group chose collaboration, and another group chose media. The identified opportunities are presented within the context of the prioritised themes, including the importance of transparent information flow between all stakeholders; user involvement throughout research studies; and routes to informing healthcare policy through collaboration. As the field of upper limb prosthetics moves toward in-home research, we present co-creation as an approach that can facilitate user involvement throughout the duration of such studies.

show abstract

Section: Discussion Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Co-creation can be used interchangeably with terminology, such as co-design, leading to multiple definitions (De Koning et al). For clarity, we refer to co-creation as a broad approach that facilitates collaboration with multiple stakeholders throughout research studies (Pearce et al, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-creation and User Perspectives for Upper Limb Prosthetics

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The challenge for using existing databases for evaluation, and also ensuring data collection matches program logic and working directly with researchers in a co‐created manner will go some way in addressing this. As described by Pearce et al (under review), co‐creation of new knowledge involves the embedding of four collaborative processes, co‐ideation, co‐design, co‐production and co‐evaluation into the delivery of a program. With research being embedded into the service and the cultivation of collaborative partnerships throughout the research process the rigor of data collection and program fidelity will be improved.…”

Section: Limitations Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, to understand the experience of providing postvention services given the high levels of vicarious exposure to suicide experienced by StandBy co‐ordinators. These research aims were co‐designed with the StandBy national office staff in a manner consistent with the definition devised by Pearce, Shakeshaft, and Maple (under review) using co‐design as a collaborative process involving all stakeholders (in this case, the service providers and researchers) who then work together on the technical design of the evaluation and the research protocols that need to be implemented.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Providing support following exposure to suicide: A mixed method study

Maple

McKay

Hess

et al. 2019

Health Soc Care Community

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Exposure to suicide and the associated impacts for those left behind can be long lasting and traumatic. Literature has predominantly examined the experience of suicide and impact from the perspective of those closest to the deceased—with studies primarily focused on kin relationships. Appropriate and timely support delivered by skilled professionals, through the provision of postvention support, has been suggested as a way to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with exposure to suicide. The evidence regarding what support, for whom, and the timing of support is scarce. As an extension of this scarcity, there is minimal research examining the ways in which provision of this postvention (that is, support following exposure to suicide) support impacts workers. This paper explores service use data gathered to evaluate a nation‐wide Australian suicide postvention service, in conjunction with qualitative data from those providing postvention support to those exposed to suicide to understand who accesses support and the impact of providing such support on service providers. Postvention workers provide insight into the demands of responding to suicide, the pressure of being on call, and the ways in which they are able to maintain their well‐being through external supervision.

show abstract

“…The past two decades have seen an increase in co-creation within many fields, which has led to variations of definition [33,34]. Figure 1 presents the definition of co-creation that the article will use, which seeks to assist in translating new knowledge into healthcare practice [35]. The definition presents four processes that facilitate collaboration with multiple stakeholders throughout a study, which can be applied to prosthetic research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-Creation Facilitates Translational Research on Upper Limb Prosthetics

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People who either use an upper limb prosthesis and/or have used services provided by a prosthetic rehabilitation centre, hereafter called users, are yet to benefit from the fast-paced growth in academic knowledge within the field of upper limb prosthetics. Crucially over the past decade, research has acknowledged the limitations of conducting laboratory-based studies for clinical translation. This has led to an increase, albeit rather small, in trials that gather real-world user data. Multi-stakeholder collaboration is critical within such trials, especially between researchers, users, and clinicians, as well as policy makers, charity representatives, and industry specialists. This paper presents a co-creation model that enables researchers to collaborate with multiple stakeholders, including users, throughout the duration of a study. This approach can lead to a transition in defining the roles of stakeholders, such as users, from participants to co-researchers. This presents a scenario whereby the boundaries between research and participation become blurred and ethical considerations may become complex. However, the time and resources that are required to conduct co-creation within academia can lead to greater impact and benefit the people that the research aims to serve.

show abstract

What is the Co-Creation of New Knowledge? A Content Analysis and Proposed Definition for Health Interventions

Cited by 58 publications

References 86 publications

Co-creation and User Perspectives for Upper Limb Prosthetics

Co-creation and User Perspectives for Upper Limb Prosthetics

Providing support following exposure to suicide: A mixed method study

Co-Creation Facilitates Translational Research on Upper Limb Prosthetics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About