Scott J. Fitzpatrick, Heather Lamb, Erin Oldman, Melanie Giugni, Cassandra Chakouch, Alyssa R. Morse, Amelia Gulliver, Erin Stewart, Stride Safe Space and Safe Haven Team, Helen T. Oni, Benn Miller, Bronwen Edwards, Kelly Stewart, Vida Bliokas, Louise A. Ellis, Fiona Shand, Alison L. Calear, Michelle Banfield
{"title":"研究中的共同创造:共同创造安全空间 \"项目的进一步思考。","authors":"Scott J. Fitzpatrick, Heather Lamb, Erin Oldman, Melanie Giugni, Cassandra Chakouch, Alyssa R. Morse, Amelia Gulliver, Erin Stewart, Stride Safe Space and Safe Haven Team, Helen T. Oni, Benn Miller, Bronwen Edwards, Kelly Stewart, Vida Bliokas, Louise A. Ellis, Fiona Shand, Alison L. Calear, Michelle Banfield","doi":"10.1111/hex.70103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Applied research using co-creation methods is rarely described or evaluated in detail. Practical evidence of co-creation processes and collaboration effectiveness is needed to better understand its complex and dynamic nature.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Using a case study design and survey method, we assessed processes of co-implementation and co-evaluation grounded in our own experiences from the Co-Creating Safe Spaces project. We examine these in the context of a published systematic framework designed to improve clarity about co-creation processes and report on how co-creation was experienced by collaborative partners.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Our study showed the interconnectedness between co-implementation and co-evaluation processes and the importance of aligning research with program processes to ensure it is responsive to emergent local needs and problems. Given relatively low levels of researcher embeddedness across sites, service champions played a pivotal role in data collection. Survey findings indicated strong support for a healthy collaboration with some concerns expressed over individual partner's areas of responsibility and ability to deliver on commitments.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Co-creation can be a very robust approach to translational research but is a complex endeavour. Ongoing reflexivity and attention to relational aspects support genuine collaboration and provide a foundation for addressing challenges.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patient or Public Contribution</h3>\n \n <p>People with lived experience of emotional distress and/or suicidal crisis, including researchers from both academic and non-research backgrounds, service managers, peer workers, carers and advocates, were involved in this research and authored this paper.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":"27 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hex.70103","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Co-Creation in Research: Further Reflections From the ‘Co-Creating Safe Spaces’ Project\",\"authors\":\"Scott J. Fitzpatrick, Heather Lamb, Erin Oldman, Melanie Giugni, Cassandra Chakouch, Alyssa R. Morse, Amelia Gulliver, Erin Stewart, Stride Safe Space and Safe Haven Team, Helen T. Oni, Benn Miller, Bronwen Edwards, Kelly Stewart, Vida Bliokas, Louise A. Ellis, Fiona Shand, Alison L. Calear, Michelle Banfield\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/hex.70103\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Applied research using co-creation methods is rarely described or evaluated in detail. Practical evidence of co-creation processes and collaboration effectiveness is needed to better understand its complex and dynamic nature.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Using a case study design and survey method, we assessed processes of co-implementation and co-evaluation grounded in our own experiences from the Co-Creating Safe Spaces project. We examine these in the context of a published systematic framework designed to improve clarity about co-creation processes and report on how co-creation was experienced by collaborative partners.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Our study showed the interconnectedness between co-implementation and co-evaluation processes and the importance of aligning research with program processes to ensure it is responsive to emergent local needs and problems. Given relatively low levels of researcher embeddedness across sites, service champions played a pivotal role in data collection. Survey findings indicated strong support for a healthy collaboration with some concerns expressed over individual partner's areas of responsibility and ability to deliver on commitments.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Co-creation can be a very robust approach to translational research but is a complex endeavour. Ongoing reflexivity and attention to relational aspects support genuine collaboration and provide a foundation for addressing challenges.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Patient or Public Contribution</h3>\\n \\n <p>People with lived experience of emotional distress and/or suicidal crisis, including researchers from both academic and non-research backgrounds, service managers, peer workers, carers and advocates, were involved in this research and authored this paper.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55070,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Expectations\",\"volume\":\"27 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hex.70103\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Expectations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70103\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Expectations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70103","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}
Co-Creation in Research: Further Reflections From the ‘Co-Creating Safe Spaces’ Project
Background
Applied research using co-creation methods is rarely described or evaluated in detail. Practical evidence of co-creation processes and collaboration effectiveness is needed to better understand its complex and dynamic nature.
Methods
Using a case study design and survey method, we assessed processes of co-implementation and co-evaluation grounded in our own experiences from the Co-Creating Safe Spaces project. We examine these in the context of a published systematic framework designed to improve clarity about co-creation processes and report on how co-creation was experienced by collaborative partners.
Results
Our study showed the interconnectedness between co-implementation and co-evaluation processes and the importance of aligning research with program processes to ensure it is responsive to emergent local needs and problems. Given relatively low levels of researcher embeddedness across sites, service champions played a pivotal role in data collection. Survey findings indicated strong support for a healthy collaboration with some concerns expressed over individual partner's areas of responsibility and ability to deliver on commitments.
Conclusion
Co-creation can be a very robust approach to translational research but is a complex endeavour. Ongoing reflexivity and attention to relational aspects support genuine collaboration and provide a foundation for addressing challenges.
Patient or Public Contribution
People with lived experience of emotional distress and/or suicidal crisis, including researchers from both academic and non-research backgrounds, service managers, peer workers, carers and advocates, were involved in this research and authored this paper.
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.