ArticleHealth research policy and systems2023
Evaluating the quality of research co-production: Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ + 4 Co-Pro).
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tensions as productive forces in coproduced mental health research: an explorative qualitative study.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Cocreation of Integrated Interventions Addressing Noncommunicable Diseases and Environmental Degradation: Protocol for a Participatory Qualitative Study.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Understanding the Scope, Intent and Extent of Published Conceptual Frameworks of Frameworks for Patient and Public Involvement in Health and Social Care Research: A Rapid Scoping Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Article
- Exploring Co-production as an Implementation Strategy for Trauma-Informed Care in a Youth-Focused HIV Clinic in Memphis, Tennessee: Mixed Methods Research.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Development and validation of the UserInvolve comprehensive toolkit for evaluating co-production in research: A guiding resource for researchers.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Against research: a case for the scholarship of application in Medical Education.Canadian medical education journal · 2025Article
- A quality assessment framework for transdisciplinary research design, monitoring, and evaluation: Guidance for application.MethodsX · 2025Article
- Unique and shared partner priorities for supporting engagement in knowledge mobilization in pediatric pain: a best-worst scaling experiment.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Engaging Burn Survivors, Their Families, and the Burn Community in Patient-Centered Outcomes Research: A Burn Survivor- and Burn Community Stakeholder-Generated and Prioritized Research Agenda.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2025Article
- Research Co-production Within Humanitarian Health: Reflections on Our Practice.International review of qualitative research : IRQR · 2025Article
- How and why funders support engaged research.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Outcomes of an integrated knowledge translation approach in five African countries: a mixed-methods comparative case study.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- Strategies for involving patients and the public in scaling initiatives in health and social services: A scoping review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Shining a light on the road towards conducting principle-based co-production research in rehabilitation.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2024Article
- Spontaneous Scaling of a Primary Care Innovation in Real-Life Conditions: Protocol for a Case Study.JMIR research protocols · 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
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCo-production is an umbrella term used to describe the process of generating knowledge through partnerships between researchers and those who will use or benefit from research. Multiple advantages of research co-production have been hypothesized, and in some cases documented, in both the academic and practice record. However, there are significant gaps in understanding how to evaluate the quality of co-production. This gap in rigorous evaluation undermines the potential of both co-production and co-producers.
methodsThis research tests the relevance and utility of a novel evaluation framework: Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ + 4 Co-Pro). Following a co-production approach ourselves, our team collaborated to develop study objectives, questions, analysis, and results sharing strategies. We used a dyadic field-test design to execute RQ + 4 Co-Pro evaluations amongst 18 independently recruited subject matter experts. We used standardized reporting templates and qualitative interviews to collect data from field-test participants, and thematic assessment and deliberative dialogue for analysis. Main limitations include that field-test participation included only health research projects and health researchers and this will limit perspective included in the study, and, that our own co-production team does not include all potential perspectives that may add value to this work.
resultsThe field test surfaced strong support for the relevance and utility of RQ + 4 Co-Pro as an evaluation approach and framework. Research participants shared opportunities for fine-tuning language and criteria within the prototype version, but also, for alternative uses and users of RQ + 4 Co-Pro. All research participants suggested RQ + 4 Co-Pro offered an opportunity for improving how co-production is evaluated and advanced. This facilitated our revision and publication herein of a field-tested RQ + 4 Co-Pro Framework and Assessment Instrument.
conclusionEvaluation is necessary for understanding and improving co-production, and, for ensuring co-production delivers on its promise of better health.. RQ + 4 Co-Pro provides a practical evaluation approach and framework that we invite co-producers and stewards of co-production-including the funders, publishers, and universities who increasingly encourage socially relevant research-to study, adapt, and apply.
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.