ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2024
Outputs from a model of co-research with older care-experienced people in Sweden to advance eldercare services.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- '"Health" Is Just One Piece in the Puzzle of Wellbeing': Shifting From Preventing Health Deterioration to Improving Wellbeing in a Participatory Action Research Project With Care-Experienced Older People.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWithin the contemporary policy turn towards co-production and co-research in Sweden, older people, practitioners and researchers alike have expressed uncertainty about how to undertake co-research. Moreover, scepticism persists about the merits and contributions of co-research and co-production to research and service development. In this paper, we aim to describe a co-research model developed with older care-experienced lay co-researchers and explore the utility of our model's outcomes to social care research and practice.
methodIn a Participatory Action Research project, we established a team of three co-researchers by professional experience and eight lay co-researchers by lived experience who were over age 75. Our team undertook a complete study cycle from inception and funding through to knowledge exchange and dissemination. Our process lasted one year and comprised three phases: the group alone establishing collective knowledge, testing knowledge in peer interviews with acquaintances, exchanging knowledge in events with multi-sector actors. We generated and analysed data concurrently in fortnightly workshops and round-table meetings using procedures inspired by framework analysis to produce themes illustrated by vignettes.
findingsWe highlight our co-research model's utility to social research, policy and practice under three themes. Expressly, how our approach (1) reaches and engages older people who are isolated at home, (2) generates out-of-the box thinking and innovative solutions for service development and research, (3) recognizes and benefits from older people's authentic experience and knowledge. We critically reflect upon these three themes and the conditions that lead towards or away from the adoption of key co-research principles.
conclusionsPublic services and research and development units working in the interests of older people can take inspiration from our co-research model when seeking to meet the challenges brought by new reforms towards closer community involvement. Despite messiness in the process, integrating and embedding principled co-research and co-production can bring clarity and structure to the issues that matter most to older people, and draw organisations closer to the communities they serve.
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.