Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38698629›Full record

ReviewHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2024

Commissioning and co-production in health and care services in the United Kingdom and Ireland: An exploratory literature review.

Rebecca J Scott, Elspeth Mathie, Hannah J H Newman, Kathryn Almack, Louca-Mai Brady

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Commissioning and co-production in health and care services in the United Kingdom and Ireland: An exploratory literature review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Review
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

5 authors.

Rebecca J ScottLibrary and Computing Services, University of Hertfordshire, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9393-6649
Elspeth MathieHealth and Social Care Inclusion, Centre for Research in Public Health and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5871-436X
Hannah J H NewmanApplied Psychology, School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2122-157X
Kathryn AlmackFamily Lives and Care, Centre for Research in Public Health and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4342-241X
Louca-Mai BradyCommunities, Young People and Family Lives, CRIPPAC, Centre for Research in Public Health and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2557-8955

Funding

BeeZeeNational Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration East of England, Prevention and Early Detection in Health and Social Care
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThis exploratory literature review seeks to examine the literature around commissioning processes in the co-production of health and care services, focusing on two questions: How do health and care commissioning processes facilitate and/or pose barriers to co-production in service design and delivery? What are the contextual factors that influence these processes?

methodA systematic search of three databases (Medline, Public Health and Social Policy and Practice) and a search platform (Web of Science) was conducted for the period 2008-2023. A total of 2675 records were retrieved. After deduplication, 1925 were screened at title and abstract level. Forty-seven reports from 42 United Kingdom and Ireland studies were included in the review. A thematic synthesis of included studies was conducted in relation to the research questions.

resultsThe review identified one overarching theme across the synthesised literature: the complexity of the commissioning landscape. Three interconnected subthemes illuminate the contextual factors that influence this landscape: commissioners as leaders of co-production; navigating relationships and the collective voice.

conclusionCommissioning processes were commonly a barrier to the co-production of health and care services. Though co-production was an aspiration for many commissioners, the political and economic environment and service pressures meant that it was often not fully realised. More flexible funding models, longer-term pilot projects, an increased emphasis in social value across the health and care system and building capacity for strong leadership in commissioning is needed. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients and the public did not contribute to this review as it was a small piece of work following on from a completed project, with no budget for public involvement.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth PolicyHumansIrelandState MedicineUnited Kingdomcommissioningco‐productionhealthhealth servicesliterature reviewsocial care

Identifiers

PMID38698629
PMCPMC11066417

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.