Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37312190›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2023

Evaluating the quality of research co-production: Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ + 4 Co-Pro).

Robert K D McLean, Fred Carden, Alice B Aiken, Rebecca Armstrong, Judy Bray, Christine E Cassidy, Olivia Daub, Erica Di Ruggiero, Leslie A Fierro, Michelle Gagnon and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Research Co-production Within Humanitarian Health: Reflections on Our Practice.International review of qualitative research : IRQR · 2025
    Article
  12. How and why funders support engaged research.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. 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 · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

18 authors.

Robert K D McLeanFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Tygerberg, South Africa. rmclean@idrc.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8084-4817
Fred CardenUsing Evidence Inc., Ottawa, Canada.
Alice B AikenVice-President Research and Innovation, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
Rebecca ArmstrongResearch and Evaluation Branch, National Disability Insurance Agency, Melbourne, Australia.
Judy BrayVice-President Research, Canadian Cancer Society, Toronto, Canada.
Christine E CassidySchool of Nursing, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
Olivia DaubSchool of Communication Sciences & Disorders, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada.
Erica Di RuggieroDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Leslie A FierroMax Bell School of Public Policy, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Michelle GagnonConsultant, Ottawa, Canada.
Alison M HutchinsonSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety in the Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Roman KislovFaculty of Business and Law, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Anita KothariSchool of Health Studies, Western University, London, Canada.
Sara KreindlerDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
Chris McCutcheonIntegrated Knowledge Translation Research Network, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Jessica ReszelOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Gayle ScarrowMichael Smith Health Research B.C, Vancouver, Canada.
Ian D GrahamIntegrated Knowledge Translation Research Network, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.

Funding

CIHR FDN #143237
6 · The paper itself

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

KnowledgeLanguageHumansResearch PersonnelUniversitiesCommunity based participatory researchEngaged scholarshipIntegrated knowledge translationParticipatory researchResearch co-productionResearch evaluationResearch Quality PlusResearch Quality Plus for Co-Production

Identifiers

PMID37312190
PMCPMC10262138

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.