Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35366898›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2022

Co-production practice and future research priorities in United Kingdom-funded applied health research: a scoping review.

Helen Smith, Luke Budworth, Chloe Grindey, Isabel Hague, Natalie Hamer, Roman Kislov, Peter van der Graaf, Joe Langley

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 84 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
84citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

84 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Evaluating Process and Outcomes of Public Involvement in Applied Health and Social Care Research: A Rapid Systematic Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. 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 · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. 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 · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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 · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Co-Production Experiences in Practice From Funding to Implementation: Co-Production Experiences of Academics and Consumers in Real-World Practice.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Co-producing adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) care in South Africa: A patient-centred framework for agency, trust, satisfaction and continuity.The South African journal of psychiatry : SAJP : the journal of the Society of Psychiatrists of South Africa · 2026
    Article
  20. Article

24 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors.

Helen SmithNIHR Applied Research Collaboration Yorkshire and Humber, Bradford, United Kingdom. Helen.Smith@bthft.nhs.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6252-3793
Luke BudworthNIHR Applied Research Collaboration Yorkshire and Humber, Bradford, United Kingdom.
Chloe GrindeyNIHR Applied Research Collaboration Yorkshire and Humber, Bradford, United Kingdom.
Isabel HagueNIHR Applied Research Collaboration Yorkshire and Humber, Bradford, United Kingdom.
Natalie HamerFaculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle, United Kingdom.
Roman KislovFaculty of Business and Law Manchester, Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Peter van der GraafNIHR Applied Research Collaboration North East and North Cumbria, Cumbria, United Kingdom.
Joe LangleyLab4Living, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, United Kingdom.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K02325X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInterest in and use of co-production in healthcare services and research is growing. Previous reviews have summarized co-production approaches in use, collated outcomes and effects of co-production, and focused on replicability and reporting, but none have critically reflected on how co-production in applied health research might be evolving and the implications of this for future research. We conducted this scoping review to systematically map recent literature on co-production in applied health research in the United Kingdom to inform co-production practice and guide future methodological research.

methodsThis scoping review was performed using established methods. We created an evidence map to show the extent and nature of the literature on co-production and applied health research, based on which we described the characteristics of the articles and scope of the literature and summarized conceptualizations of co-production and how it was implemented. We extracted implications for co-production practice or future research and conducted a content analysis of this information to identify lessons for the practice of co-production and themes for future methodological research.

resultsNineteen articles reporting co-produced complex interventions and 64 reporting co-production in applied health research met the inclusion criteria. Lessons for the practice of co-production and requirements for co-production to become more embedded in organizational structures included (1) the capacity to implement co-produced interventions, (2) the skill set needed for co-production, (3) multiple levels of engagement and negotiation, and (4) funding and institutional arrangements for meaningful co-production. Themes for future research on co-production included (1) who to involve in co-production and how, (2) evaluating outcomes of co-production, (3) the language and practice of co-production, (4) documenting costs and challenges, and (5) vital components or best practice for co-production.

conclusionResearchers are operationalizing co-production in various ways, often without the necessary financial and organizational support required and the right conditions for success. We argue for accepting the diversity in approaches to co-production, call on researchers to be clearer in their reporting of these approaches, and make suggestions for what researchers should record. To support co-production of research, changes to entrenched academic and scientific practices are needed. Protocol registration details: The protocol for the scoping review was registered with protocols.io on 19 October 2021: https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.by7epzje .

Indexed as

Research DesignResearch PersonnelHumansPublicationsUnited KingdomApplied health researchCo-creationCo-productionScoping review

Identifiers

PMID35366898
PMCPMC8976994

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.