Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36550509›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2022

Approaches to co-production of research in care homes: a scoping review.

F V Hallam-Bowles, P A Logan, S Timmons, K R Robinson

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. 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
  3. The Role of Power in Co-Approaches to Health Research: Insights From Spain and the United Kingdom With a Rapid Review of Reviews.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. The CIRCLE Care Home Guide: A Co-Designed Resource on LGBTQ+ Inclusion for Care Homes.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. A virtuous cycle of co-production: Reflections from a community priority-setting exercise.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  11. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

F V Hallam-BowlesResearch and Innovation, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK. frances.hallam@nottingham.ac.uk.
P A LoganCentre for Rehabilitation and Ageing Research, Injury, Inflammation and Recovery Sciences, Medical School, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
S TimmonsCentre for Health Innovation, Leadership and Learning, Nottingham University Business School, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
K R RobinsonResearch and Innovation, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
University of Nottingham · GBNottingham City Council · GBNottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust · GB

Funding

NIHR NIHR300115
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUsing the technique of co-production to develop research is considered good practice. Co-production involves the public, practitioners and academics working together as equals throughout a research project. Co-production may help develop alternative ways of delivering care for older adults that are acceptable to those who live and work in care homes. However, guidance about applying co-production approaches in this context is lacking. This scoping review aims to map co-production approaches used in care homes for older adults in previous research to support the inclusion of residents and care staff as equal collaborators in future studies.

methodsA scoping review was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology. Seven electronic databases were searched for peer-reviewed primary studies using co-production approaches in care home settings for older adults. Studies were independently screened against eligibility criteria by two reviewers. Citation searching was completed. Data relating to study characteristics, co-production approaches used, including any barriers and facilitators, was charted by one reviewer and checked by another. Data was summarised using tables and diagrams with an accompanying narrative description. A collaborator group of care home and health service representatives were involved in the interpretation of the findings from their perspectives.

results19 studies were selected for inclusion. A diverse range of approaches to co-production and engaging key stakeholders in care home settings were identified. 11 studies reported barriers and 13 reported facilitators affecting the co-production process. Barriers and facilitators to building relationships and achieving inclusive, equitable and reciprocal co-production were identified in alignment with the five NIHR principles. Practical considerations were also identified as potential barriers and facilitators.

conclusionThe components of co-production approaches, barriers and facilitators identified should inform the design of future research using co-production approaches in care homes. Future studies should be explicit in reporting what is meant by co-production, the methods used to support co-production, and steps taken to enact the principles of co-production. Sharing of key learning is required to support this field to develop. Evaluation of co-production approaches, including participants' experiences of taking part in co-production processes, are areas for future research in care home settings.

Indexed as

BarriersCare homesCo-creationCo-designCo-productionFacilitatorsParticipatory researchSocial careStakeholder participation

Identifiers

PMID36550509
PMCPMC9780102
OpenAlexW4312179127

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.