Evaluating stakeholder involvement in building a decision support tool for NHS health checks: co-producing the WorkHORSE study

Background Stakeholder engagement is being increasingly recognised as an important way to achieving impact in public health. The WorkHORSE ( Work ing H ealth O utcomes R esearch S imulation E nvironment) project was designed to continuously engage with stakeholders to inform the development of an open access modelling tool to enable commissioners to quantify the potential cost-effectiveness and equity of the NHS Health Check Programme. An objective of the project was to evaluate the involvement of stakeholders in co-producing the WorkHORSE computer modelling tool and examine how they perceived their involvement in the model building process and ultimately contributed to the strengthening and relevance of the modelling tool. Methods We identified stakeholders using our extensive networks and snowballing techniques. Iterative development of the decision support modelling tool was informed through engaging with stakeholders during four workshops. We used detailed scripts facilitating open discussion and opportunities for stakeholders to provide additional feedback subsequently. At the end of each workshop, stakeholders and the research team completed questionnaires to explore their views and experiences throughout the process. Results 30 stakeholders participated, of which 15 attended two or more workshops. They spanned local (NHS commissioners, GPs, local authorities and academics), third sector and national organisations including Public Health England. Stakeholders felt valued, and commended the involvement of practitioners in the iterative process. Major reasons for attending included: being able to influence development, and having insight and understanding of what the tool could include, and how it would work in practice. Researchers saw the process as an opportunity for developing a common language and trust in the end product, and ensuring the support tool was transparent. The workshops acted as a reality check ensuring model scenarios and outputs were relevant and fit for purpose. Conclusions Computational modellers rarely consult with end users when developing tools to inform decision-making. The added value of co-production (continuing collaboration and iteration with stakeholders) enabled modellers to produce a “real-world” operational tool. Likewise, stakeholders had increased confidence in the decision support tool’s development and applicability in practice.

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

[2]  Sally C. Brailsford,et al.  Stakeholder engagement in health care simulation , 2009, Proceedings of the 2009 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC).

[3]  Simon J. E. Taylor,et al.  Causal factors of low stakeholder engagement: a survey of expert opinions in the context of healthcare simulation projects , 2015, Simul..

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

[5]  Deirdre A. Shires,et al.  Logic model framework for considering the inputs, processes and outcomes of a healthcare organisation–research partnership , 2019, BMJ Quality & Safety.

[6]  Kristen Hassmiller Lich,et al.  Integrating Systems Science and Community-Based Participatory Research to Achieve Health Equity. , 2016, American journal of public health.

[7]  M. Suhrcke,et al.  Engaging stakeholders and target groups in prioritising a public health intervention: the Creating Active School Environments (CASE) online Delphi study , 2017, BMJ Open.

[8]  Simon J. E. Taylor,et al.  Causal study of low stakeholder engagement in healthcare simulation projects , 2015, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[9]  M. Dixon-Woods,et al.  A qualitative study of design stakeholders’ views of developing and implementing a registry-based learning health system , 2020, Implementation Science.

[10]  Colin Bell,et al.  A Community Based Systems Diagram of Obesity Causes , 2015, PloS one.

[11]  Jean Adams,et al.  How do public health professionals view and engage with research? A qualitative interview study and stakeholder workshop engaging public health professionals and researchers , 2017, BMC Public Health.

[12]  Kathryn Oliver,et al.  The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research? , 2019, Health Research Policy and Systems.

[13]  George P. Richardson,et al.  Scriptapedia: A Handbook of Scripts for Developing Structured Group Model Building Sessions , 2011 .

[14]  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.

[15]  A. Kothari,et al.  Embracing complexity and uncertainty to create impact: exploring the processes and transformative potential of co-produced research through development of a social impact model , 2018, Health Research Policy and Systems.

[16]  J. Horwood,et al.  Pilot implementation of co-designed software for co-production in mental health care planning: a qualitative evaluation of staff perspectives , 2019, Journal of mental health.

[17]  J. Jull,et al.  A review and synthesis of frameworks for engagement in health research to identify concepts of knowledge user engagement , 2019, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[18]  Jeanne-Marie Guise,et al.  Engaging Stakeholders To Identify and Prioritize Future Research Needs , 2011 .

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

[20]  I. Buchan,et al.  Cardiovascular screening to reduce the burden from cardiovascular disease: microsimulation study to quantify policy options , 2016, British Medical Journal.

[21]  K. Oliver,et al.  Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy? , 2017, Health Research Policy and Systems.

[22]  A. Wesselink,et al.  Research impacts and impact on research in biodiversity conservation: The influence of stakeholder engagement , 2012 .

[23]  S. Capewell,et al.  Engaging with stakeholders to inform the development of a decision-support tool for the NHS health check programme: qualitative study , 2020, BMC Health Services Research.

[24]  Tillal Eldabi,et al.  Development of modelling method selection tool for health services management: From problem structuring methods to modelling and simulation methods , 2011, BMC health services research.

[25]  N. Britten,et al.  Collaborative research and the co-production of knowledge for practice: an illustrative case study , 2015, Implementation Science.

[26]  R. Freeman Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach , 2010 .

[27]  A. Meadow,et al.  The art of co-production of knowledge in environmental sciences and management: lessons from international practice , 2018, Environmental Management.

[28]  B. Kiteme,et al.  Researchers' roles in knowledge co-production: experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal , 2010 .

[29]  Hilde van der Togt,et al.  Publisher's Note , 2003, J. Netw. Comput. Appl..