研究中的共同创造:共同创造安全空间 "项目的进一步思考。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
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,&nbsp;Heather Lamb,&nbsp;Erin Oldman,&nbsp;Melanie Giugni,&nbsp;Cassandra Chakouch,&nbsp;Alyssa R. Morse,&nbsp;Amelia Gulliver,&nbsp;Erin Stewart,&nbsp;Stride Safe Space and Safe Haven Team,&nbsp;Helen T. Oni,&nbsp;Benn Miller,&nbsp;Bronwen Edwards,&nbsp;Kelly Stewart,&nbsp;Vida Bliokas,&nbsp;Louise A. Ellis,&nbsp;Fiona Shand,&nbsp;Alison L. Calear,&nbsp;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,&nbsp;Heather Lamb,&nbsp;Erin Oldman,&nbsp;Melanie Giugni,&nbsp;Cassandra Chakouch,&nbsp;Alyssa R. Morse,&nbsp;Amelia Gulliver,&nbsp;Erin Stewart,&nbsp;Stride Safe Space and Safe Haven Team,&nbsp;Helen T. Oni,&nbsp;Benn Miller,&nbsp;Bronwen Edwards,&nbsp;Kelly Stewart,&nbsp;Vida Bliokas,&nbsp;Louise A. Ellis,&nbsp;Fiona Shand,&nbsp;Alison L. Calear,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:使用共同创造方法进行的应用研究很少得到详细描述或评估。为了更好地了解其复杂性和动态性,我们需要有关共同创造过程和合作效果的实际证据:方法:我们采用案例研究设计和调查方法,根据共创安全空间项目中的自身经验,对共同实施和共同评估过程进行了评估。我们在已发布的系统框架内对这些过程进行了研究,该框架旨在提高共同创造过程的清晰度,并报告合作伙伴是如何体验共同创造的:我们的研究表明了共同实施和共同评估过程之间的相互关联性,以及将研究与计划过程相结合以确保研究能够满足当地新出现的需求和问题的重要性。由于研究人员在各项目点的嵌入程度相对较低,服务倡导者在数据收集中发挥了关键作用。调查结果显示,各方大力支持健康的合作,但也有一些人对合作伙伴的责任范围和履行承诺的能力表示担忧:结论:共同创造是一种非常有效的转化研究方法,但也是一项复杂的工作。持续的反思和对关系方面的关注有助于真正的合作,并为应对挑战奠定了基础:有情绪困扰和/或自杀危机亲身经历的人,包括来自学术和非研究背景的研究人员、服务管理人员、同伴工作者、照护者和倡导者,都参与了这项研究并撰写了本文。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信