32
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      What is the Co-Creation of New Knowledge? A Content Analysis and Proposed Definition for Health Interventions

      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

          Co-creation of new knowledge has the potential to speed up the discovery and application of new knowledge into practice. However, the progress of co-creation is hindered by a lack of definitional clarity and inconsistent use of terminology. The aim of this paper is to propose a new standardised definition of co-creation of new knowledge for health interventions based on the existing co-creation literature. The authors completed a systematic search of electronic databases and Google Scholar using 10 of the most frequently used co-creation-related keywords to identify relevant studies. Qualitative content analysis was performed, and two reviewers independently tested the categorisation of papers. Of the 6571 papers retrieved, 42 papers met the inclusion criteria. Examination of the current literature on co-creation demonstrated how the variability of co-creation-related terms can be reduced to four collaborative processes: co-ideation, co-design, co-implementation and co-evaluation. Based on these four processes, a new definition of co-creation of new knowledge for health interventions is proposed. The analysis revealed the need to address the conceptual ambiguity of the definition of “co-creation of new knowledge”. The proposed new definition may help to resolve the current definitional issues relating to co-creation, allowing researchers and policymakers to progress the development of co-creation of new knowledge in research and practice.

          Related collections

          Most cited references75

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

          A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Community-based participatory research and integrated knowledge translation: advancing the co-creation of knowledge

            Background Better use of research evidence (one form of “knowledge”) in health systems requires partnerships between researchers and those who contend with the real-world needs and constraints of health systems. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) and integrated knowledge translation (IKT) are research approaches that emphasize the importance of creating partnerships between researchers and the people for whom the research is ultimately meant to be of use (“knowledge users”). There exist poor understandings of the ways in which these approaches converge and diverge. Better understanding of the similarities and differences between CBPR and IKT will enable researchers to use these approaches appropriately and to leverage best practices and knowledge from each. The co-creation of knowledge conveys promise of significant social impacts, and further understandings of how to engage and involve knowledge users in research are needed. Main text We examine the histories and traditions of CBPR and IKT, as well as their points of convergence and divergence. We critically evaluate the ways in which both have the potential to contribute to the development and integration of knowledge in health systems. As distinct research traditions, the underlying drivers and rationale for CBPR and IKT have similarities and differences across the areas of motivation, social location, and ethics; nevertheless, the practices of CBPR and IKT converge upon a common aim: the co-creation of knowledge that is the result of knowledge user and researcher expertise. We argue that while CBPR and IKT both have the potential to contribute evidence to implementation science and practices for collaborative research, clarity for the purpose of the research—social change or application—is a critical feature in the selection of an appropriate collaborative approach to build knowledge. Conclusion CBPR and IKT bring distinct strengths to a common aim: to foster democratic processes in the co-creation of knowledge. As research approaches, they create opportunities to challenge assumptions about for whom, how, and what is defined as knowledge, and to develop and integrate research findings into health systems. When used appropriately, CBPR and IKT both have the potential to contribute to and advance implementation science about the conduct of collaborative health systems research.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Limitations of the randomized controlled trial in evaluating population-based health interventions.

              Population- and systems-based interventions need evaluation, but the randomized controlled trial (RCT) research design has significant limitations when applied to their complexity. After some years of being largely dismissed in the ranking of evidence in medicine, alternatives to the RCT have been debated recently in public health and related population and social service fields to identify the trade-offs in their use when randomization is impractical or unethical. This review summarizes recent debates and considers the pragmatic and economic issues associated with evaluating whole-population interventions while maintaining scientific validity and credibility.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                ijerph
                International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
                MDPI
                1661-7827
                1660-4601
                26 March 2020
                April 2020
                : 17
                : 7
                : 2229
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Health, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia; mmaple2@ 123456une.edu.au
                [2 ]National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Randwick Campus, 22–32 King Street, Randwick, NSW 2031, Australia; a.shakeshaft@ 123456unsw.edu.au
                [3 ]C43A, Jeffrey Miller Admin Building, Cumberland Campus, The University of Sydney, Lidcombe, NSW 2141, Australia; sarah.wayland@ 123456sydney.edu.au
                [4 ]Department of Health Services Research, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3BX, UK; kmckay@ 123456tavi-port.nhs.uk
                [5 ]Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3BX, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: tpearce7@ 123456myune.edu.au
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8772-5888
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9398-4886
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5472-0930
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5536-2522
                Article
                ijerph-17-02229
                10.3390/ijerph17072229
                7177645
                32224998
                0c788012-a4fc-4830-b9b7-775683d5e03a
                © 2020 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 29 February 2020
                : 21 March 2020
                Categories
                Article

                Public health
                co-creation,co-creation of new knowledge,content analysis,knowledge translation,collaboration,health intervention,knowledge production,co-design,co-evaluation,co-ideation,co-implementation

                Comments

                Comment on this article