ArticleHealth research policy and systems2020
Lost in the shadows: reflections on the dark side of co-production.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07569497 (Co-design of a Physical Activity Maintenance Intervention for People With Stroke), which is not on this map. Cited by 145 papers, 8 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.
Co-design of a Physical Activity Maintenance Intervention for People With Stroke
Who cites it
145 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The effectiveness of knowledge-sharing techniques and approaches in research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR): a systematic review.Health research policy and systems · 2024Pooled it
- Establishing a Health CASCADE-Curated Open-Access Database to Consolidate Knowledge About Co-Creation: Novel Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Methodology Based on Systematic Reviews.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Pooled 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-designing Community Out-of-hours Palliative Care Services: A systematic literature search and review.Palliative medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Meaningful patient and public involvement in digital health innovation, implementation and evaluation: A systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Pooled it
- The use of co-production, co-design and co-creation to mobilise knowledge in the management of health conditions: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2022Pooled it
- Co-production as an Emerging Methodology for Developing School-Based Health Interventions with Students Aged 11-16: Systematic Review of Intervention Types, Theories and Processes and Thematic Synthesis of Stakeholders' Experiences.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2021Pooled it
- Exploring the theory, barriers and enablers for patient and public involvement across health, social care and patient safety: a systematic review of reviews.Health research policy and systems · 2021Pooled it
- Stakeholder-engaged process for refining the design of a clinical trial in home hospice.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Trial
- 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
- Conceptualising and operationalising 'patient and public involvement' (PPI) and 'responsible research and innovation' (RRI) in youth mental health research: a scoping review.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Review
- Article
- Realist synthesis of co-production of services in a local authority context: what works, for whom, how and in what circumstances?Health research policy and systems · 2026Review
- Growing CAPITOL 4 Life: A Case Study of Co-designed Material for the First 1000 Days Using a Modified Double Diamond Approach.Maternal and child health journal · 2026Article
- Reflections on public involvement: learning from a personalised balance training intervention for individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Co-Producing Training Resources to Improve Healthcare Experiences for Young Women and Reduce Gendered Health Inequalities.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 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
- How Lived Experience Advisory Groups Contribute to the Design and Conduct of Mental Health Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Embedding Multiperspective Reflections in Co-Producing a Training Intervention for Care Home Staff: Understanding Group Members' Journeys and Impacts.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
85 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This article is a response to Oliver et al.'s Commentary 'The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?' recently published in Health Research Policy and Systems (2019, 17:33). The original commentary raises some important questions about how and when to co-produce health research, including highlighting various professional costs to those involved. However, we identify four related limitations in their inquiry, as follows: (1) the adoption of a problematically expansive definition of co-production that fails to acknowledge key features that distinguish co-production from broader collaboration; (2) a strong focus on technocratic rationales for co-producing research and a relative neglect of democratic rationales; (3) the transposition of legitimate concerns relating to collaboration between researchers and practitioners onto work with patients, service users and marginalised citizens; and (4) the presentation of bad practice as an inherent flaw, or indeed 'dark side', of co-production without attending to the corrupting influence of contextual factors within academic research that facilitate and even promote such malpractice. The Commentary's limitations can be seen to reflect the contemporary use of the term 'co-production' more broadly. We describe this phenomenon as 'cobiquity' - an apparent appetite for participatory research practice and increased emphasis on partnership working, in combination with the related emergence of a plethora of 'co' words, promoting a conflation of meanings and practices from different collaborative traditions. This phenomenon commonly leads to a misappropriation of the term 'co-production'. Our main motivation is to address this imprecision and the detrimental impact it has on efforts to enable co-production with marginalised and disadvantaged groups. We conclude that Oliver et al. stray too close to 'the problem' of 'co-production' seeing only the dark side rather than what is casting the shadows. We warn against such a restricted view and argue for greater scrutiny of the structural factors that largely explain academia's failure to accommodate and promote the egalitarian and utilitarian potential of co-produced research.
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.