ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2022
Approaches to co-production of research in care homes: a scoping review.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors associated with the engagement in meaningful activity and occupational balance in institutionalised older adults: a prospective observational cohort study.BMC geriatrics · 2026Observational
- 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
- 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 · 2025Review
- "We Didn't Ask to Be Sick:" Equipping Residents and Care Partners for Transitions From Long-Term Care to Hospital.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2025Article
- 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 · 2025Article
- How are patient partners involved in health service research? A scoping review of reviews.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Review
- Co-design methodology for rapid prototyping of modular robots in care settings.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2025Article
- Heart failure in nursing homes: A scoping review of educational interventions for optimising care provision.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2024Article
- Towards equitable representation in long-term residential care: widening the circle to ensure "essential voices" in research teams.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- 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 · 2023Article
- Effective approaches to public involvement in care home research: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.