Achieving Research Impact Through Co‐creation in Community‐Based Health Services: Literature Review and Case Study

Abstract

POLICY POINTS: Co-creation-collaborative knowledge generation by academics working alongside other stakeholders-is an increasingly popular approach to aligning research and service development. It has potential for "moving beyond the ivory towers" to deliver significant societal impact via dynamic, locally adaptive community-academic partnerships. Principles of successful co-creation include a systems perspective, a creative approach to research focused on improving human experience, and careful attention to governance and process. If these principles are not followed, co-creation efforts may fail. CONTEXT: Co-creation-collaborative knowledge generation by academics working alongside other stakeholders-reflects a "Mode 2" relationship (knowledge production rather than knowledge translation) between universities and society. Co-creation is widely believed to increase research impact. METHODS: We undertook a narrative review of different models of co-creation relevant to community-based health services. We contrasted their diverse disciplinary roots and highlighted their common philosophical assumptions, principles of success, and explanations for failures. We applied these to an empirical case study of a community-based research-service partnership led by the Centre of Research Excellence in Quality and Safety in Integrated Primary-Secondary Care at the University of Queensland, Australia. FINDINGS: Co-creation emerged independently in several fields, including business studies ("value co-creation"), design science ("experience-based co-design"), computer science ("technology co-design"), and community development ("participatory research"). These diverse models share some common features, which were also evident in the case study. Key success principles included (1) a systems perspective (assuming emergence, local adaptation, and nonlinearity); (2) the framing of research as a creative enterprise with human experience at its core; and (3) an emphasis on process (the framing of the program, the nature of relationships, and governance and facilitation arrangements, especially the style of leadership and how conflict is managed). In both the literature review and the case study, co-creation "failures" could often be tracked back to abandoning (or never adopting) these principles. All co-creation models made strong claims for significant and sustainable societal impacts as a result of the adaptive and developmental research process; these were illustrated in the case study. CONCLUSIONS: Co-creation models have high potential for societal impact but depend critically on key success principles. To capture the nonlinear chains of causation in the co-creation pathway, impact metrics must reflect the dynamic nature and complex interdependencies of health research systems and address processes as well as outcomes.

References 109

1. 1.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

2. 2.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

3. 3.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

4. 4.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

5. 5.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

6. 6.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

7. 7.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

8. 8.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

9. 9.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

10. 10.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

11. 11.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

12. 12.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

13. 13.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

14. 14.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

15. 15.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

16. 16.
    A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: partnership synergy, trust building and related ripple effects · 2015

    No notice
17. 17.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

18. 18.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

19. 19.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

20. 20.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

21. 21.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

22. 22.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

23. 23.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

24. 24.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

25. 25.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

26. 26.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

27. 27.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

28. 28.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

29. 29.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

30. 30.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

31. 31.
    Bridges, brokers and boundary spanners in collaborative networks: a systematic review · 2013

    No notice
32. 32.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

33. 33.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

34. 34.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

35. 35.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

36. 36.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

37. 37.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

38. 38.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

39. 39.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

40. 40.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

Cited by papers we hold 18

• Perspectives of user groups in the co-creation of a targeted dental care service intervention for older adults receiving home healthcare: an explorative study · 2025
  Not checked
• The use of co-production, co-design and co-creation to mobilise knowledge in the management of health conditions: a systematic review · 2022
  No notice
• Opioid overdose counseling and prescribing of naloxone in rural community pharmacies: A pilot study · 2021
  Not checked
• Shaping Workflows in Digital and Remote Diabetes Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic via Service Design: Prospective, Longitudinal, Open-label Feasibility Trial · 2021
  Not checked
• Strategy for Deployment of Integrated Healthy Aging Regions Based Upon an Evidence-Based Regional Ecosystem—The Styria Model · 2020
  Not checked
• How does integrated knowledge translation (IKT) compare to other collaborative research approaches to generating and translating knowledge? Learning from experts in the field · 2020
  No notice
• Evaluating Large-Scale Integrated Care Projects: The Development of a Protocol for a Mixed Methods Realist Evaluation Study in Belgium · 2020
  Not checked
• A review of reviews on principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts of research partnerships approaches: a first step in synthesising the research partnership literature · 2020
  No notice
• Partnerships, Processes, and Outcomes: A Health Equity–Focused Scoping Meta-Review of Community-Engaged Scholarship · 2020
  No notice
• Using co‐creation and multi‐criteria decision analysis to close service gaps for underserved populations · 2019
  Not checked
• Designing and developing a co-produced theoretical and evidence-based online support for family caregivers of people with dementia at the end of life · 2019
  Not checked
• Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co‐design pilot · 2019
  No notice
• Patient and Public Engagement in Integrated Knowledge Translation Research: Are we there yet? · 2019
  No notice
• Framework, principles and recommendations for utilising participatory methodologies in the co-creation and evaluation of public health interventions · 2019
  No notice
• How to engage stakeholders in research: design principles to support improvement · 2018
  No notice
• ‘Collective making’ as knowledge mobilisation: the contribution of participatory design in the co-creation of knowledge in healthcare · 2018
  No notice
• What outcomes are associated with developing and implementing co-produced interventions in acute healthcare settings? A rapid evidence synthesis · 2017
  No notice
• Community-based participatory research and integrated knowledge translation: advancing the co-creation of knowledge · 2017
  No notice

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.