Applying models of co-production in the context of health and well-being. A narrative review to guide future practice.

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Glenn Robert, Sara Donetto, Daniel Masterson, Sofia Kjellström
{"title":"Applying models of co-production in the context of health and well-being. A narrative review to guide future practice.","authors":"Glenn Robert, Sara Donetto, Daniel Masterson, Sofia Kjellström","doi":"10.1093/intqhc/mzae077","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recent years have seen a dramatic growth in interest in the nature and extent of co-production in the health and social care sectors. Due to the proliferation of work on co-production, there is variation in practice in how co-production is defined, understood, and used in practice. We conducted a narrative review to explore, and provide an overview of, which models of health and social care co-production have been developed, applied, and critiqued over recent decades. Seventy-three peer-reviewed articles met our inclusion criteria. In this set of articles, we identified three broad types of models: conceptual/theoretical, practice-oriented, and presenting a typology. We found that practice-oriented models, predominantly from the Health Services Research and Quality Improvement literature, had largely not drawn on conceptual/theoretical models from the disciplinary fields of Public Administration & Management and Sociology. In particular, they have largely neglected theoretical perspectives on relationships and power and agency in co-production work. The concepts of Service-Dominant Logic and Public Service-Dominant Logic as ways to think about the joint, collaborative process of producing new value, particularly in the context of the use of a service, have also been neglected. Our review has identified distinct literatures which have contributed a variety of models of health and social care co-production. Our findings highlight under-explored dimensions of co-production that merit greater attention in the health and social care contexts. The overview of models of co-production we provide aims to offer a useful platform for the integration of different perspectives on co-production in future research and practice in health and social care.</p>","PeriodicalId":13800,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Quality in Health Care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11352599/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal for Quality in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzae077","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent years have seen a dramatic growth in interest in the nature and extent of co-production in the health and social care sectors. Due to the proliferation of work on co-production, there is variation in practice in how co-production is defined, understood, and used in practice. We conducted a narrative review to explore, and provide an overview of, which models of health and social care co-production have been developed, applied, and critiqued over recent decades. Seventy-three peer-reviewed articles met our inclusion criteria. In this set of articles, we identified three broad types of models: conceptual/theoretical, practice-oriented, and presenting a typology. We found that practice-oriented models, predominantly from the Health Services Research and Quality Improvement literature, had largely not drawn on conceptual/theoretical models from the disciplinary fields of Public Administration & Management and Sociology. In particular, they have largely neglected theoretical perspectives on relationships and power and agency in co-production work. The concepts of Service-Dominant Logic and Public Service-Dominant Logic as ways to think about the joint, collaborative process of producing new value, particularly in the context of the use of a service, have also been neglected. Our review has identified distinct literatures which have contributed a variety of models of health and social care co-production. Our findings highlight under-explored dimensions of co-production that merit greater attention in the health and social care contexts. The overview of models of co-production we provide aims to offer a useful platform for the integration of different perspectives on co-production in future research and practice in health and social care.

在健康和福祉背景下应用共同生产模式。指导未来实践的叙事回顾。
背景:近年来,人们对医疗和社会护理领域共同生产的性质和程度的兴趣急剧增长。由于有关共同生产的工作大量涌现,在实践中如何定义、理解和使用共同生产也存在着巨大差异:我们进行了一项叙述性综述,以探索和概述在过去几十年中,哪些医疗和社会护理共同生产模式得到了发展、应用和批评:73篇经同行评审的文章符合我们的纳入标准。在这些文章中,我们发现了三大类模式:概念/理论模式、实践导向模式和类型学模式。我们发现,以实践为导向的模型主要来自医疗服务研究和质量改进文献,在很大程度上没有借鉴公共行政与管理和社会学等学科领域的概念/理论模型。特别是,它们在很大程度上忽视了共同生产工作中的关系、权力和代理的理论视角,以及服务主导逻辑和公共服务主导逻辑的概念,这些概念是思考产生新价值的联合协作过程的方法,特别是在使用服务的背景下:我们的研究发现了不同的文献,这些文献提供了各种医疗和社会护理共同生产的模式。我们的研究结果强调了共同生产中尚未被充分探索的方面,这些方面值得在医疗和社会护理领域给予更多关注。我们对共同生产模式的概述旨在提供一个有用的平台,以便在未来的医疗和社会护理研究与实践中整合关于共同生产的不同观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
3.80%
发文量
87
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal for Quality in Health Care makes activities and research related to quality and safety in health care available to a worldwide readership. The Journal publishes papers in all disciplines related to the quality and safety of health care, including health services research, health care evaluation, technology assessment, health economics, utilization review, cost containment, and nursing care research, as well as clinical research related to quality of care. This peer-reviewed journal is truly interdisciplinary and includes contributions from representatives of all health professions such as doctors, nurses, quality assurance professionals, managers, politicians, social workers, and therapists, as well as researchers from health-related backgrounds.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信