Tapping into the power of coproduction and knowledge mobilisation: Exploration of a facilitated interactive group learning approach to support equity-sensitive decision-making in local health and care services

被引:1
作者
Cloke, Jane [1 ]
Hassan, Shaima [1 ]
Goodall, Mark [1 ]
Ring, Adele [1 ]
Saini, Pooja [2 ]
Tahir, Naheed [1 ,3 ]
Gabbay, Mark [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Liverpool, Dept Primary Care & Mental Hlth, Liverpool, England
[2] Liverpool John Moores Univ, Sch Psychol, Liverpool, England
[3] NIHR ARC NWC, Liverpool, England
关键词
capacity building; coproduction; health inequalities; knowledge mobilisation; FRAMEWORK;
D O I
10.1111/hex.13774
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
BackgroundWe report on a study of a facilitated interactive group learning approach, through Collaborative Implementation Groups (CIGs), established to enhance capacity for equity-sensitive evaluation of healthcare services to inform local decision-making: (1) What was the experience of participants of the CIGs? (2) How was knowledge mobilisation achieved? (3) What are the key elements that enhance the process of coproducing equity-sensitive evaluations? MethodsA thematic analysis of qualitative data obtained from focus group (FG) discussions and semistructured interviews exploring the experiences of participants. All FGs included representation of participants from different projects across the programme. Interviews were conducted with a member from each of the teams participating in the first cohort after their final workshop. ResultsWe identified four themes to illustrate how the approach to delivering intensive and facilitated training supported equity-sensitive evaluations of local healthcare services: (1) Creating the setting for coproduction and knowledge mobilisation; (2) establishing a common purpose, meaning and language for reducing health inequalities; (3) making connections and brokering relationships and (4) challenging and transforming the role of evaluation. ConclusionWe report on the implementation of a practical example of engaged scholarship, where teams of healthcare staff were supported with resources, interactive training and methodological advice to evaluate their own services, enabling organisations to assemble timely practical and relevant evidence that could feed directly into local decision-making. By encouraging mixed teams of practitioners, commissioners, patients, the public and researchers to work together to coproduce their evaluations, the programme also aimed to systematise health equity into service change. The findings of our study illustrate that the approach to delivering training gave participants the tools and confidence to address their organisation's stated aims of reducing health inequalities, coproduce evaluations of their local services and mobilise knowledge from a range of stakeholders. Patient or Public ContributionThe research question was developed collaboratively with researchers, partner organisations and public advisers (PAs). PAs were involved in meetings to agree on the focus of this research and to plan the analysis. N. T. is a PA and coauthor, contributing to the interpretation of findings and drafting of the paper.
引用
收藏
页码:1692 / 1702
页数:11
相关论文
共 32 条
[1]   What is co-production? Conceptualising and understanding co-production of knowledge and policy across different theoretical perspectives [J].
Bandola-Gill, Justyna ;
Arthur, Megan ;
Leng, Rhodri Ivor .
EVIDENCE & POLICY, 2023, 19 (02) :275-298
[2]   Building capacity to use and undertake research in health organisations: a survey of training needs and priorities among staff [J].
Barratt, Helen ;
Fulop, Naomi J. .
BMJ OPEN, 2016, 6 (12)
[3]   Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing researcher [J].
Braun, Virginia ;
Clarke, Victoria .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRANSGENDER HEALTH, 2023, 24 (01) :1-6
[4]   Knowledge mobilisation in public service reform: integrating empirical, technical and practical wisdom [J].
Bynner, Claire ;
Terje, Anna .
EVIDENCE & POLICY, 2021, 17 (01) :75-91
[5]   What outcomes are associated with developing and implementing co-produced interventions in acute healthcare settings? A rapid evidence synthesis [J].
Clarke, David ;
Jones, Fiona ;
Harris, Ruth ;
Robert, Glenn .
BMJ OPEN, 2017, 7 (07)
[6]   "Seeing" the Difference: The Importance of Visibility and Action as a Mark of "Authenticity" in Co-production [J].
Cooke, Jo ;
Langley, Joe ;
Wolstenholme, Dan ;
Hampshaw, Susan .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH POLICY AND MANAGEMENT, 2017, 6 (06) :345-348
[7]  
Cooksey D., 2006, REV UK HLTH RES FUND
[8]   Uncovering the processes of knowledge transformation: the example of local evidence-informed policy-making in United Kingdom healthcare [J].
Gabbay, John ;
le May, Andree ;
Pope, Catherine ;
Brangan, Emer ;
Cameron, Ailsa ;
Klein, Jonathan H. ;
Wye, Lesley .
HEALTH RESEARCH POLICY AND SYSTEMS, 2020, 18 (01)
[9]   Exploring the Relationship (and Power Dynamic) Between Researchers and Public Partners Working Together in Applied Health Research Teams [J].
Green, Gill ;
Johns, Tracey .
FRONTIERS IN SOCIOLOGY, 2019, 4
[10]   The use of co-production, co-design and co-creation to mobilise knowledge in the management of health conditions: a systematic review [J].
Grindell, Cheryl ;
Coates, Elizabeth ;
Croot, Liz ;
O'Cathain, Alicia .
BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2022, 22 (01)