The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?

BackgroundCoproduction, a collaborative model of research that includes stakeholders in the research process, has been widely advocated as a means of facilitating research use and impact. We summarise the arguments in favour of coproduction, the different approaches to establishing coproductive work and their costs, and offer some advice as to when and how to consider coproduction.DebateDespite the multiplicity of reasons and incentives to coproduce, there is little consensus about what coproduction is, why we do it, what effects we are trying to achieve, or the best coproduction techniques to achieve policy, practice or population health change. Furthermore, coproduction is not free risk or cost. Tensions can arise throughout coproduced research processes between the different interests involved. We identify five types of costs associated with coproduced research affecting the research itself, the research process, professional risks for researchers and stakeholders, personal risks for researchers and stakeholders, and risks to the wider cause of scholarship. Yet, these costs are rarely referred to in the literature, which generally calls for greater inclusion of stakeholders in research processes, focusing exclusively on potential positives. There are few tools to help researchers avoid or alleviate risks to themselves and their stakeholders.ConclusionsFirst, we recommend identifying specific motivations for coproduction and clarifying exactly which outcomes are required for whom for any particular piece of research. Second, we suggest selecting strategies specifically designed to enable these outcomes to be achieved, and properly evaluated. Finally, in the absence of strong evidence about the impact and process of coproduction, we advise a cautious approach to coproduction. This would involve conscious and reflective research practice, evaluation of how coproduced research practices change outcomes, and exploration of the costs and benefits of coproduction. We propose some preliminary advice to help decide when coproduction is likely to be more or less useful.

[1]  A. Boaz,et al.  How to engage stakeholders in research: design principles to support improvement , 2018, Health Research Policy and Systems.

[2]  K. Liabo,et al.  Involvement in research without compromising research quality , 2012, Journal of Health Services Research and Policy.

[3]  T. Wykes,et al.  Close to the bench as well as at the bedside: involving service users in all phases of translational research , 2012, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[4]  S. Oliver,et al.  Editorial: Motivations for engagement , 2017 .

[5]  B. Cooke,et al.  Power, knowledge and social control in participatory development. , 2001 .

[6]  Pascale Lehoux,et al.  Patient and public engagement in research and health system decision making: A systematic review of evaluation tools , 2018, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[7]  L. Richardson,et al.  Translation across borders: Exploring the use, relevance and impact of academic research in the policy process , 2015 .

[8]  M. Dobrow,et al.  Identifying the conditions needed for integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health care organizations: qualitative interviews with researchers and research users , 2016, BMC Health Services Research.

[9]  B. Prainsack The “We” in the “Me” , 2018 .

[10]  Jo Rycroft-Malone,et al.  The role of evidence, context, and facilitation in an implementation trial: implications for the development of the PARIHS framework , 2013, Implementation Science.

[11]  C. Bell,et al.  Inside the whale : ten personal accounts of social research , 1978 .

[12]  Anita Kothari,et al.  Defining Integrated Knowledge Translation and Moving Forward: A Response to Recent Commentaries , 2017, International journal of health policy and management.

[13]  Paul Cairney,et al.  The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making , 2016 .

[14]  S. Martin,et al.  Co-production of social research: strategies for engaged scholarship , 2010 .

[15]  S. Oliver,et al.  Editorial: The challenges of sharing different ways of knowing , 2018 .

[16]  Joyce E. Wilkinson,et al.  Collective action for knowledge mobilisation: a realist evaluation of the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care , 2015 .

[17]  A. Faulkner,et al.  Evaluating the impact of service user involvement on research: a prospective case study , 2011 .

[18]  Teresa R. Behrens,et al.  Unintended consequences of cooperative research: impact of industry sponsorship on climate for academic freedom and other graduate student outcome , 2001 .

[19]  C. Carrozza Democratizing Expertise and Environmental Governance: Different Approaches to the Politics of Science and their Relevance for Policy Analysis , 2015 .

[20]  Jude Fransman,et al.  Charting a course to an emerging field of 'research engagement studies': A conceptual meta-synthesis , 2018, Research for All.

[21]  Sarah Bowen,et al.  Demystifying knowledge translation: learning from the community , 2005, Journal of health services research & policy.

[22]  Paul Cairney,et al.  The dos and don’ts of influencing policy: a systematic review of advice to academics , 2019, Palgrave Communications.

[23]  E. Nolte,et al.  What is the evidence base for public involvement in health‐care policy?: results of a systematic scoping review , 2015, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[24]  B. Wynne,et al.  Despotism and Democracy in the United Kingdom: Experiments in Reframing Citizenship , 2011 .

[25]  M. Barrett,et al.  Balancing exploration and exploitation in transferring research into practice: a comparison of five knowledge translation entity archetypes , 2013, Implementation Science.

[26]  Trisha Greenhalgh,et al.  Co-design and implementation research: challenges and solutions for ethics committees , 2015, BMC Medical Ethics.

[27]  T Greenhalgh,et al.  Narrative based medicine: narrative based medicine in an evidence based world. , 1999, BMJ.

[28]  Catherine Needham,et al.  Generating 'good enough' evidence for co-production , 2017 .

[29]  Jennie Popay,et al.  How are policy makers using evidence? Models of research utilisation and local NHS policy making , 2000, Journal of epidemiology and community health.

[30]  Bridging Academic–Legislative Divides: Models of Policy-Relevant Health Research and Practice by the University of California , 2012, Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action.

[31]  R. Iedema,et al.  The "clinalyst": Institutionalizing reflexive space to realize safety and flexible systematization in health care , 2011 .

[32]  S. Ebrahim,et al.  How policy informs the evidence , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[33]  T. Lorenc,et al.  A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers , 2014, BMC Health Services Research.

[34]  V. Kanuha "Being" native versus "going native": conducting social work research as an insider. , 2000, Social work.

[35]  Deborah Ghate,et al.  Developing theories of change for social programmes: co-producing evidence-supported quality improvement , 2018, Palgrave Communications.

[36]  E. Ostrom Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development , 1996 .

[37]  Rick Iedema,et al.  Codesigning as a Discursive Practice in Emergency Health Services: The Architecture of Deliberation , 2010 .

[38]  Sandy Oliver,et al.  The role and theoretical evolution of knowledge translation and exchange in public health. , 2006, Journal of public health.

[39]  Peter Beresford,et al.  Developing the theoretical basis for service user/survivor-led research and equal involvement in research , 2005, Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale.

[40]  M. Dobbins,et al.  Knowledge brokering in public health: a tale of two studies. , 2014, Public health.

[41]  Matthew Wood,et al.  The Politics of Co-Production: Risks, Limits and Pollution. , 2016 .

[42]  Roy Cameron,et al.  A description of a knowledge broker role implemented as part of a randomized controlled trial evaluating three knowledge translation strategies , 2009 .

[43]  W. Sutherland,et al.  Policy advice: Use experts wisely , 2015, Nature.

[44]  D. Fitzgerald,et al.  Rethinking Interdisciplinarity across the Social Sciences and Neurosciences , 2015 .

[45]  Colin Tysall,et al.  A Systematic Review of the Impact of Patient and Public Involvement on Service Users, Researchers and Communities , 2014, The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research.

[46]  Peter Gluckman,et al.  Policy: The art of science advice to government , 2014, Nature.

[47]  Joe Langley,et al.  ‘Collective making’ as knowledge mobilisation: the contribution of participatory design in the co-creation of knowledge in healthcare , 2018, BMC Health Services Research.

[48]  David W. Cash,et al.  Knowledge systems for sustainable development , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[49]  Sandy Oliver,et al.  Public involvement in research: making sense of the diversity , 2015, Journal of health services research & policy.

[50]  V. Montori,et al.  Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework , 2015, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[51]  Sandy Oliver,et al.  Broadening public participation in systematic reviews: a case example involving young people in two configurative reviews , 2015, Research synthesis methods.

[52]  J. Gray,et al.  Evidence based policy making , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[53]  Trisha Greenhalgh,et al.  10 years of mindlines: a systematic review and commentary , 2015, Implementation Science.

[54]  D. Russell,et al.  Engaging stakeholders in rehabilitation research: a scoping review of strategies used in partnerships and evaluation of impacts , 2015, Disability and rehabilitation.

[55]  M. Dobbins,et al.  Challenges of partnership research: insights from a collaborative partnership in evidence-informed public health decision making , 2015 .

[56]  A. Renedo,et al.  The co-production of what? Knowledge, values, and social relations in health care , 2017, PLoS biology.

[57]  Kathryn Oliver,et al.  New directions in evidence-based policy research: a critical analysis of the literature , 2014, Health Research Policy and Systems.

[58]  R. Watermeyer Challenges for university engagement in the UK : towards a public academe? , 2011 .

[59]  K. Oliver,et al.  Networks and network analysis in evidence, policy and practice , 2018, Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice.

[60]  Richard Spano,et al.  Potential sources of observer bias in police observational data , 2005 .

[61]  Whitney Berta,et al.  Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health care: a scoping review , 2015, Implementation Science.

[62]  A. Boaz,et al.  Effective implementation of research into practice: an overview of systematic reviews of the health literature , 2011, BMC Research Notes.

[63]  J. P. Lane,et al.  Engaging national organizations for knowledge translation: Comparative case studies in knowledge value mapping , 2011, Implementation science : IS.

[64]  R. Lidskog,et al.  From consensus to credibility , 2004 .

[65]  S. Knowles,et al.  Learning from the emergence of NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs): a systematic review of evaluations , 2018, Implementation Science.

[66]  R. Moore,et al.  Evidence-based policy-making , 2006, Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine.

[67]  C. Leeuwis,et al.  Participation and Power: Reflections on the Role of Government in Land Use Planning and Rural Development , 2010 .

[68]  Z. Fre Knowledge Sovereignty among African Cattle Herders , 2018 .

[69]  Laurenz Langer,et al.  Terminology and tensions within evidence-informed decision-making in South Africa over a 15-year period , 2017 .

[70]  Brianne Yantz Reframing Rights : Bioconstitutionalism in the Genetic Age , 2013 .

[71]  P. Weingart,et al.  Democratization of Expertise?: Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making , 2005 .

[72]  B. Cooke,et al.  Participation: the New Tyranny? , 2001 .

[73]  I. Graham,et al.  Research agenda for integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in healthcare: what we know and do not yet know , 2016, Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health.