ReviewFrontiers in sociology2019
Toward Co-productive Learning? The Exchange Network as Experimental Space.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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 · 2022Article
- '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 · 2021Article
- More than a method: trusting relationships, productive tensions, and two-way learning as mechanisms of authentic co-production.Research involvement and engagement · 2021Article
- Metaphors of organizations in patient involvement programs: connections and contradictions.Journal of health organization and management · 2021Article
- Working together to co-produce better health: The experience of the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for Northwest London.Journal of health services research & policy · 2021Article
- 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 · 2020Article
- Lost in the shadows: reflections on the dark side of co-production.Health research policy and systems · 2020Article
- Patient and public involvement in priority-setting decisions in England's Transforming NHS: An interview study with Clinical Commissioning Groups in South London sustainability transformation partnerships.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019Article
- How helpful are Patient and Public Involvement strategic documents - Results of a framework analysis using 4Pi National Involvement Standards.Research involvement and engagement · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.