Evaluation of Co-Production in Adolescent Health Research: A Mixed Methods Study From Born in Bradford.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
David Ryan, Adam Whitehead, Amelia Hudak, Edie Lee, Isobel Dowling, Jennie Ellul, Jennifer Ingram, Katy A Shire, Shahid Islam, John Wright, Rosemary R C McEachan
{"title":"Evaluation of Co-Production in Adolescent Health Research: A Mixed Methods Study From Born in Bradford.","authors":"David Ryan, Adam Whitehead, Amelia Hudak, Edie Lee, Isobel Dowling, Jennie Ellul, Jennifer Ingram, Katy A Shire, Shahid Islam, John Wright, Rosemary R C McEachan","doi":"10.1111/hex.70876","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Co-production is often viewed as best practice for involving the public in research, while measures such as sharing power, reciprocity, and relationship-building are seen as key guiding principles. However, implementing co-production and its underlying principles remains challenging, with limited evaluative work examining how these principles are applied in practice, particularly within large-scale studies and with young people. This study aimed to explore whether Born in Bradford's (BiB) co-production values and principles have been embedded in BiB Age of Wonder (AoW), a longitudinal study following over 20,000 Bradford teenagers through secondary school and into early adulthood.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This evaluation used a mixed-methods approach. Participants included parents, young people, teachers, and community members. Quantitative data was collected via an online survey (n = 79). Qualitative data was collected via four focus groups (n = 17). The survey and focus group topic guide were co-designed with young people, with questions designed to assess how well the principles and values of BiB's co-production strategy had been embedded in AoW. Descriptive statistics were used to explore the survey responses. Qualitative data was analysed using framework analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Survey and focus group findings indicated that co-production group members mostly agreed or strongly agreed that the nine principles of co-production had been embedded in AoW. However, 'sharing power' and 'community engagement' were found to be areas that could be improved, with participants calling for earlier involvement in research design, clearer feedback loops, and outreach beyond existing groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found evidence that the values and principles of co-production have been embedded in AoW co-production. Suggestions for improvement include shaping research agendas through earlier involvement, deeper engagement with schools and communities, and paid peer research posts. Future steps include (1) developing sustainable peer research strategies to deepen co-production, and (2) incorporating perspectives from diverse stakeholders including budget holders, facilitators, researchers and public contributors in future evaluations.</p><p><strong>Patient or public contribution: </strong>Members of the public were involved in the study conceptualisation, methods development and implementation. The survey and focus group topic guide were co-designed with young people from BiB Age of Wonder co-production groups. Co-production group members were also involved as participants in the surveys and focus groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":"29 5","pages":"e70876"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13670425/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Expectations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.70876","RegionNum":3,"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

Background: Co-production is often viewed as best practice for involving the public in research, while measures such as sharing power, reciprocity, and relationship-building are seen as key guiding principles. However, implementing co-production and its underlying principles remains challenging, with limited evaluative work examining how these principles are applied in practice, particularly within large-scale studies and with young people. This study aimed to explore whether Born in Bradford's (BiB) co-production values and principles have been embedded in BiB Age of Wonder (AoW), a longitudinal study following over 20,000 Bradford teenagers through secondary school and into early adulthood.

Methods: This evaluation used a mixed-methods approach. Participants included parents, young people, teachers, and community members. Quantitative data was collected via an online survey (n = 79). Qualitative data was collected via four focus groups (n = 17). The survey and focus group topic guide were co-designed with young people, with questions designed to assess how well the principles and values of BiB's co-production strategy had been embedded in AoW. Descriptive statistics were used to explore the survey responses. Qualitative data was analysed using framework analysis.

Results: Survey and focus group findings indicated that co-production group members mostly agreed or strongly agreed that the nine principles of co-production had been embedded in AoW. However, 'sharing power' and 'community engagement' were found to be areas that could be improved, with participants calling for earlier involvement in research design, clearer feedback loops, and outreach beyond existing groups.

Conclusions: We found evidence that the values and principles of co-production have been embedded in AoW co-production. Suggestions for improvement include shaping research agendas through earlier involvement, deeper engagement with schools and communities, and paid peer research posts. Future steps include (1) developing sustainable peer research strategies to deepen co-production, and (2) incorporating perspectives from diverse stakeholders including budget holders, facilitators, researchers and public contributors in future evaluations.

Patient or public contribution: Members of the public were involved in the study conceptualisation, methods development and implementation. The survey and focus group topic guide were co-designed with young people from BiB Age of Wonder co-production groups. Co-production group members were also involved as participants in the surveys and focus groups.

青少年健康研究中合作生产的评价:来自布拉德福德出生的混合方法研究。
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
Health Expectations
Health Expectations 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
9.40%
发文量
251
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Expectations promotes critical thinking and informed debate about all aspects of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care, health policy and health services research including: • Person-centred care and quality improvement • Patients'' participation in decisions about disease prevention and management • Public perceptions of health services • Citizen involvement in health care policy making and priority-setting • Methods for monitoring and evaluating participation • Empowerment and consumerism • Patients'' role in safety and quality • Patient and public role in health services research • Co-production (researchers working with patients and the public) of research, health care and policy Health Expectations is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, review articles and critical commentaries. It includes papers which clarify concepts, develop theories, and critically analyse and evaluate specific policies and practices. The Journal provides an inter-disciplinary and international forum in which researchers (including PPIE researchers) from a range of backgrounds and expertise can present their work to other researchers, policy-makers, health care professionals, managers, patients and consumer advocates.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书