ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2024
Understanding Co-Creation in a Research Partnership Programme Exploring Patient-Driven Innovations: A Qualitative Longitudinal Study.
Article 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundResearch indicates that successful co-creation depends on a shared understanding of co-creation and its related concepts. However, it also shows that, in practice, views on co-creation and how to do it differ. This study aims to explore how patient innovators and researchers in a partnership research programme understand co-creation and how this understanding changes over time.
methodsAn explorative longitudinal qualitative study was conducted with the 'Patients in the Driver's Seat' partnership research programme. Fifty-eight interviews were performed and analysed using a reflexive thematic approach.
findingsFour different ways of understanding co-creation were identified. These can be instrumentally conceptualized as themes using the inputs-process-outputs model: (1) combining different perspectives, experiences and backgrounds (inputs); (2) deliberately dynamic and exploratory (process); (3) striving for equity, not equality (process); and (4) diverse value creation, tangible and intangible (outputs). Together, these themes represent the varied understandings of co-creation among partnership programme members.
conclusionsOur study of patient innovators and researchers identified four distinct yet complementary understandings of co-creation. The study suggests that co-creation is the sum of its essential components, which can be divided into inputs, process, and outputs. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study, and the partnership programme it explored, aims to improve the relevance of research for patients and informal caregivers through an improved understanding of the concept of co-creation within research on patient innovation. All patient innovators involved in the programme were invited, as interviewees and researchers, to contribute to the study design and data analysis.
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.