8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      How to support a co-creative research approach in order to foster impact. The development of a Co-creation Impact Compass for healthcare researchers

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Active participation of stakeholders in health research practice is important to generate societal impact of outcomes, as innovations will more likely be implemented and disseminated in clinical practice. To foster a co-creative process, numerous frameworks and tools are available. As they originate from different professions, it is not evident that health researchers are aware of these tools, or able to select and use them in a meaningful way. This article describes the bottom-up development process of a compass and presents the final outcome. This Co-creation Impact Compass combines a well-known business model with tools from design thinking that promote active participation by all relevant stakeholders. It aims to support healthcare researchers to select helpful and valid co-creation tools for the right purpose and at the right moment. Using the Co-creation Impact Compass might increase the researchers’ understanding of the value of co-creation, and it provides help to engage stakeholders in all phases of a research project.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.

          Content analysis is a widely used qualitative research technique. Rather than being a single method, current applications of content analysis show three distinct approaches: conventional, directed, or summative. All three approaches are used to interpret meaning from the content of text data and, hence, adhere to the naturalistic paradigm. The major differences among the approaches are coding schemes, origins of codes, and threats to trustworthiness. In conventional content analysis, coding categories are derived directly from the text data. With a directed approach, analysis starts with a theory or relevant research findings as guidance for initial codes. A summative content analysis involves counting and comparisons, usually of keywords or content, followed by the interpretation of the underlying context. The authors delineate analytic procedures specific to each approach and techniques addressing trustworthiness with hypothetical examples drawn from the area of end-of-life care.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations.

            This article summarizes an extensive literature review addressing the question, How can we spread and sustain innovations in health service delivery and organization? It considers both content (defining and measuring the diffusion of innovation in organizations) and process (reviewing the literature in a systematic and reproducible way). This article discusses (1) a parsimonious and evidence-based model for considering the diffusion of innovations in health service organizations, (2) clear knowledge gaps where further research should be focused, and (3) a robust and transferable methodology for systematically reviewing health service policy and management. Both the model and the method should be tested more widely in a range of contexts.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

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

              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.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                12 October 2020
                2020
                : 15
                : 10
                : e0240543
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Family Medicine, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
                [2 ] Research Centre for Autonomy and Participation of Persons with a Chronic Illness, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Heerlen, The Netherlands
                Universitá Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, ITALY
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2050-5992
                Article
                PONE-D-20-05698
                10.1371/journal.pone.0240543
                7549764
                33045033
                09132e5c-0a78-4973-bbe0-85ae05328073
                © 2020 van Dijk-de Vries et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 28 February 2020
                : 29 September 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 3, Pages: 16
                Funding
                Funded by: Province of Limburg
                Award ID: Limburg Meet
                The study was embedded within LIME, a four-year innovation program that was funded by the Province of Limburg, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, and Maastricht University. The Province of Limburg had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Engineering and Technology
                Equipment
                Measurement Equipment
                Compasses
                Engineering and Technology
                Technology Development
                Prototypes
                Social Sciences
                Economics
                Economic Analysis
                Economic Impact Analysis
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Assessment
                Bibliometrics
                Social Sciences
                Economics
                Health Economics
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Economics
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Database and Informatics Methods
                Database Searching
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognitive Psychology
                Learning
                Human Learning
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Learning
                Human Learning
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Learning
                Human Learning
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Learning and Memory
                Learning
                Human Learning
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Care Providers
                Physicians
                General Practitioners
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Professions
                Medical Personnel
                Physicians
                General Practitioners
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article