ArticleHealth research policy and systems2019
The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07110779 (Telenursing in Coronary Artery Disease), which is not on this map. Cited by 295 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Telenursing in Coronary Artery Disease: Randomized Clinical Trial and Patient Collaboration
Who cites it
295 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Barriers and Enablers of Primary Healthcare Professionals in Health Research Engagement: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies.Nursing & health sciences · 2025Pooled it
- What Do We Know About Sharing Power in Co-Production in Mental Health Research? A Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Pooled it
- Participatory research with carers: A systematic review and narrative synthesis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Pooled it
- A systematic review of theories, models and frameworks used for youth engagement in health research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Pooled it
- Evaluating the role and effectiveness of co-produced community-based mental health interventions that aim to reduce suicide among adults: A systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Pooled it
- Co-adapting a healthy sleep intervention with adolescents: impact and process evaluation of a Health CASCADE pilot study.BMC public health · 2025Trial
- The efficacy of the "Talk-to-Me" suicide prevention and mental health education program for tertiary students: a crossover randomised control trial.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2023Trial
- Enhancing translation capacities of COVID-19 researchers through interdisciplinary collaboration: empathy, awareness, and action.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Co-Production in Adolescent Health Research: A Mixed Methods Study From Born in Bradford.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Developing Best Practices in Co-Production With Lived Experience Experts in Bipolar Research: Insights From the AMBIENT-BD Lived Experience Advisory Panel.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- A research agenda for making evidence useful, usable and used in policymaking.Nature human behaviour · 2026Review
- "We don't get asked": including people with workforce experience as public contributors in a workforce-related study about homecare work towards the end-of-life.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Questions for more insightful and useful analyses of barriers and facilitators to public involvement and engagement in health research: a critical narrative review.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Review
- Using Paulo Freire's philosophy to share power: early insights from planning for the co-production of knowledge in research.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Review
- Using Photovoice to Capture the Quality of Life of the Australian Autistic Community.Autism in adulthood · 2026Article
- Article
- Advancing evidence-informed policy: outcomes of the global research agenda on knowledge translation.Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
- Sailing Into Uncharted Territory: Victim Survivors' Perspectives on Some of the Tensions of Engagement as Partners in Co-Design Research.Violence against women · 2026Article
- Tensions as productive forces in coproduced mental health research: an explorative qualitative study.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Lessons learned from including Patient and Public Involvement members throughout research projects in Tic Disorder research.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
235 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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. DEBATE: Despite 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.