Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36683204›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2023

Nothing about us without us: A co-production strategy for communities, researchers and stakeholders to identify ways of improving health and reducing inequalities.

Alexandra Albert, Shahid Islam, Muki Haklay, Rosemary R C McEachan

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline 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. Article
  3. Group Poetry and Quilt-Making -Creative Public Involvement Approaches to Contentious Concepts in Frailty Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Co-Development of the CoMUni Intervention: A Social-Media-Based Resource to Increase Mental Health Help-Seeking Behaviours in UK Undergraduates.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Alexandra AlbertExtreme Citizen Science Research Group, Geography Department, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5838-675X
Shahid IslamBradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7424-4011
Muki HaklayExtreme Citizen Science Research Group, Geography Department, University College London, London, UK.
Rosemary R C McEachanBradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1302-6675

Funding

Department of Health NIHR200166Medical Research Council MR/S037527/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCo-production with communities is increasingly seen as best practice that can improve the quality, relevance and effectiveness of research and service delivery. Despite this promising position, there remains uncertainty around definitions of co-production and how to operationalize it. The current paper describes the development of a co-production strategy to guide the work of the ActEarly multistakeholder preventative research programme to improve children's health in Bradford and Tower Hamlets, UK.

methodsThe strategy used Appreciative Inquiry (AI), an approach following a five-step iterative process: to define (Step 1) scope and guide progress; to discover (Step 2) key issues through seven focus groups (N = 36) and eight in-depth interviews with key stakeholders representing community groups, and the voluntary and statutory sectors; to dream (Step 3) best practice through two workshops with AI participants to review findings; to design (Step 4) a co-production strategy building on AI findings and to deliver (Step 5) the practical guidance in the strategy.

resultsNine principles for how to do co-production well were identified: power should be shared; embrace a wide range of perspectives and skills; respect and value the lived experience; benefits should be for all involved parties; go to communities and do not expect them to come to you; work flexibly; avoid jargon and ensure availability of the right information; relationships should be built for the long-term; co-production activities should be adequately resourced. These principles were based on three underlying values of equality, reciprocity and agency.

conclusionThe empirical insights of the paper highlight the crucial importance of adequate resources and infrastructure to deliver effective co-production. This documentation of one approach to operationalizing co-production serves to avert any misappropriations of the term 'co-production' by listening to service users, stakeholders and other relevant groups, to develop trust and long-term relationships, and build on the learning that already exists amongst such groups. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The work was overseen by a steering group (N = 17) of individuals, both professional and members of the public with experience in undertaking co-production, and/or with some knowledge of the context of the two ActEarly field sites, who provided regular oversight and feedback on the AI process.

Indexed as

Child HealthHealth InequitiesChildHumansAppreciative Inquiryco-productionethnicityhealth inequalitiespublic healthstrategy development

Identifiers

PMID36683204
PMCPMC10010091

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
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.