Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33869359›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in sociology2019

Toward Co-productive Learning? The Exchange Network as Experimental Space.

Rachel Matthews, Constantina Stan Papoulias

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in sociology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Contributors are representative, as long as they agree: How confirmation logic overrides effort to achieve synthesis in applied health research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  2. 'A limpet on a ship': Spatio-temporal dynamics of patient and public involvement in research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The reported impact of public involvement in biobanks: A scoping review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Rachel MatthewsNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Collaboration for Leadership and Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for Northwest London, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Constantina Stan PapouliasHealth Service and Population Research, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Policy around patient and public involvement (PPI) in the production, design and delivery of health services, and research remains difficult to implement. Consequently, in the UK and elsewhere, recent years have seen a proliferation of toolkits, training, and guidelines for supporting good practice in PPI. However, such instruments rarely engage with the power asymmetries shaping the terrain of collaboration in research and healthcare provision. Toolkits and standards may tell us little about how different actors can be enabled to reflect on and negotiate such asymmetries, nor on how they may effectively challenge what count as legitimate forms of knowledge and expertise. To understand this, we need to turn our attention to the relational dynamic of collaboration itself. In this paper we present the development of the Exchange Network, an experimental learning space deliberately designed to foreground, and work on this relational dynamic in healthcare research and quality improvement. The Network brings together diverse actors (researchers, clinicians, patients, carers, and managers) for structured "events" which are not internal to particular research or improvement projects but subsist at a distance from these. Such events thus temporarily suspend the role allocation, structure, targets, and other pragmatic constraints of such projects. We discuss how Exchange Network participants make use of action learning techniques to reflect critically on such constraints; how they generate a "knowledge space" in which they can rehearse and test a capacity for dialogue: an encounter between potentially conflictual forms of knowledge. We suggest that Exchange Network events, by explicitly attending to the dynamics and tensions of collaboration, may enable participants to collectively challenge organizational norms and expectations and to seed capacities for learning, as well as generate new forms of mutuality and care.

Indexed as

action learningcollaborationco-productionpatient and public involvementquality improvementreflexivity

Identifiers

PMID33869359
PMCPMC8022628

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.