了解探索患者驱动创新的研究合作计划中的共同创造:定性纵向研究

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health Expectations Pub Date : 2024-08-30 DOI:10.1111/hex.70003
Hanna Jansson, Jamie L. Luckhaus, Henna Hasson, Pamela Mazzocato, Terese Stenfors, Carolina Wannheden
{"title":"了解探索患者驱动创新的研究合作计划中的共同创造:定性纵向研究","authors":"Hanna Jansson,&nbsp;Jamie L. Luckhaus,&nbsp;Henna Hasson,&nbsp;Pamela Mazzocato,&nbsp;Terese Stenfors,&nbsp;Carolina Wannheden","doi":"10.1111/hex.70003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Research indicates that successful co-creation depends on a shared understanding of co-creation and its related concepts. However, it also shows that, in practice, views on co-creation and how to do it differ. This study aims to explore how patient innovators and researchers in a partnership research programme understand co-creation and how this understanding changes over time.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>An explorative longitudinal qualitative study was conducted with the ‘Patients in the Driver's Seat’ partnership research programme. Fifty-eight interviews were performed and analysed using a reflexive thematic approach.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Findings</h3>\n \n <p>Four different ways of understanding co-creation were identified. These can be instrumentally conceptualized as themes using the <i>inputs-process-outputs</i> model: (1) combining different perspectives, experiences and backgrounds (<i>inputs</i>); (2) deliberately dynamic and exploratory (<i>process</i>); (3) striving for equity, not equality (<i>process</i>); and (4) diverse value creation, tangible and intangible (<i>outputs</i>). Together, these themes represent the varied understandings of co-creation among partnership programme members.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Our study of patient innovators and researchers identified four distinct yet complementary understandings of co-creation. The study suggests that co-creation is the sum of its essential components, which can be divided into <i>inputs</i>, <i>process</i>, and <i>outputs</i>.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patient or Public Contribution</h3>\n \n <p>This study, and the partnership programme it explored, aims to improve the relevance of research for patients and informal caregivers through an improved understanding of the concept of co-creation within research on patient innovation. All patient innovators involved in the programme were invited, as interviewees and researchers, to contribute to the study design and data analysis.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":"27 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hex.70003","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding Co-Creation in a Research Partnership Programme Exploring Patient-Driven Innovations: A Qualitative Longitudinal Study\",\"authors\":\"Hanna Jansson,&nbsp;Jamie L. Luckhaus,&nbsp;Henna Hasson,&nbsp;Pamela Mazzocato,&nbsp;Terese Stenfors,&nbsp;Carolina Wannheden\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/hex.70003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Research indicates that successful co-creation depends on a shared understanding of co-creation and its related concepts. However, it also shows that, in practice, views on co-creation and how to do it differ. This study aims to explore how patient innovators and researchers in a partnership research programme understand co-creation and how this understanding changes over time.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>An explorative longitudinal qualitative study was conducted with the ‘Patients in the Driver's Seat’ partnership research programme. Fifty-eight interviews were performed and analysed using a reflexive thematic approach.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Findings</h3>\\n \\n <p>Four different ways of understanding co-creation were identified. These can be instrumentally conceptualized as themes using the <i>inputs-process-outputs</i> model: (1) combining different perspectives, experiences and backgrounds (<i>inputs</i>); (2) deliberately dynamic and exploratory (<i>process</i>); (3) striving for equity, not equality (<i>process</i>); and (4) diverse value creation, tangible and intangible (<i>outputs</i>). Together, these themes represent the varied understandings of co-creation among partnership programme members.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Our study of patient innovators and researchers identified four distinct yet complementary understandings of co-creation. The study suggests that co-creation is the sum of its essential components, which can be divided into <i>inputs</i>, <i>process</i>, and <i>outputs</i>.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Patient or Public Contribution</h3>\\n \\n <p>This study, and the partnership programme it explored, aims to improve the relevance of research for patients and informal caregivers through an improved understanding of the concept of co-creation within research on patient innovation. All patient innovators involved in the programme were invited, as interviewees and researchers, to contribute to the study design and data analysis.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55070,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Expectations\",\"volume\":\"27 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hex.70003\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Expectations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70003\",\"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.70003","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 研究表明,共同创造的成功取决于对共同创造及其相关概念的共同理解。然而,研究也表明,在实践中,人们对共同创造以及如何进行共同创造的看法各不相同。本研究旨在探讨患者创新者和研究人员在合作研究计划中如何理解共同创造,以及这种理解如何随着时间的推移而发生变化。 方法 对 "患者在驾驶座上 "合作研究计划进行了一项探索性纵向定性研究。共进行了 58 次访谈,并采用反思性主题方法进行了分析。 研究结果 确定了四种理解共同创造的不同方式。这些方法可以通过投入-过程-产出模型,工具性地概念化为以下主题:(1) 结合不同的视角、经验和背景(投入);(2) 有意识地进行动态探索(过程);(3) 努力实现公平而非平等(过程);(4) 创造有形和无形的各种价值(产出)。这些主题共同代表了合作伙伴计划成员对共同创造的不同理解。 结论 我们对患者创新者和研究人员的研究发现了对共同创造的四种不同但互补的理解。研究表明,共同创造是其基本组成部分的总和,可分为投入、过程和产出。 患者或公众的贡献 本研究及其探索的合作计划旨在通过在患者创新研究中加深对共同创造概念的理解,提高研究对患者和非正式护理人员的相关性。所有参与该计划的患者创新者都被邀请作为受访者和研究人员,为研究设计和数据分析做出贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Understanding Co-Creation in a Research Partnership Programme Exploring Patient-Driven Innovations: A Qualitative Longitudinal Study

Background

Research indicates that successful co-creation depends on a shared understanding of co-creation and its related concepts. However, it also shows that, in practice, views on co-creation and how to do it differ. This study aims to explore how patient innovators and researchers in a partnership research programme understand co-creation and how this understanding changes over time.

Methods

An explorative longitudinal qualitative study was conducted with the ‘Patients in the Driver's Seat’ partnership research programme. Fifty-eight interviews were performed and analysed using a reflexive thematic approach.

Findings

Four different ways of understanding co-creation were identified. These can be instrumentally conceptualized as themes using the inputs-process-outputs model: (1) combining different perspectives, experiences and backgrounds (inputs); (2) deliberately dynamic and exploratory (process); (3) striving for equity, not equality (process); and (4) diverse value creation, tangible and intangible (outputs). Together, these themes represent the varied understandings of co-creation among partnership programme members.

Conclusions

Our study of patient innovators and researchers identified four distinct yet complementary understandings of co-creation. The study suggests that co-creation is the sum of its essential components, which can be divided into inputs, process, and outputs.

Patient or Public Contribution

This study, and the partnership programme it explored, aims to improve the relevance of research for patients and informal caregivers through an improved understanding of the concept of co-creation within research on patient innovation. All patient innovators involved in the programme were invited, as interviewees and researchers, to contribute to the study design and data analysis.

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.
期刊最新文献
Exploring Barriers and Facilitators to Patients and Members of the Public Contributing to Rapid Health Technology Assessments for NICE: A Qualitative Study. 'The Letter Says I May or May Not Be Eligible… It Is a Big Doubt and Frustrating:' A Qualitative Study on Barriers and Facilitators to Children's Oral Healthcare From the Perspective of Karen Refugee Parents in Victoria. Beyond the Queue: Exploring Waiting Practices in the Stories of Patients With Breast Cancer Consumer Involvement in the Design and Development of Medication Safety Interventions or Services in Primary Care: A Scoping Review Shared Decision-Making and Body Mass Index in Australian Antenatal Care: An Exploratory OPTION12 Evaluation
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1