Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41885606›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2026

Co-Production Experiences in Practice From Funding to Implementation: Co-Production Experiences of Academics and Consumers in Real-World Practice.

Samantha Kozica Olenski, Anusha Ramani Chander, Georgina Chambers, Leslie Arnott, Deborah Loxton, Michelle Peate, Helena Teede

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Samantha Kozica OlenskiMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Monash University and Monash Health, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
Anusha Ramani ChanderMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Monash University and Monash Health, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
Georgina ChambersCentre for Big Data Research in Health and School of Clinical Medicine, University of New South Wales (UNSW Sydney), Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Leslie ArnottMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Monash University and Monash Health, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
Deborah LoxtonCentre for Women's Health Research, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Michelle PeateDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Newborn Health, Royal Women's Hospital, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Helena TeedeMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Monash University and Monash Health, Clayton, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7609-577X

Funding

Australian Government Medical Research EPCD000014
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConsumer and community involvement in health research is increasingly recognised as essential for ensuring relevance and responsiveness to diverse population needs. The Australian Women's Health Research, Translation and Impact Network (WHRTN) aims to improve women's health and build capability in women academics. WHRTN awarded targeted co-production grants to support collaborations between academics and consumer teams across women-centred research priority areas. This study explores the application of co-production processes, including the experiences of academic and consumer leads in planning and implementing projects in real-world research.

methodsQualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with academic and consumer leads. Template analysis was used to thematically and deductively code de-identified transcripts, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the National Institute for Health and Care Research co-production principles.

resultsTwenty interviews revealed that co-production was operationalised in diverse ways to meet contextual needs and deliver meaningful outcomes. Consumer and community involvement were consistently prioritised, with principles such as power sharing, equality, reciprocity, and relationship-building evident. Project progress and outcomes were influenced by the developmental stage of the research team, project maturity, and strength of existing partnerships. Key enablers included strong leadership, prior co-production experience, mutual respect, open communication, established networks, and clear project goals. System and organisational challenges included the slow pace of co-production, resource demands, and working in sensitive areas such as Indigenous health and sexual violence.

conclusionThe value of involving consumers in project planning and implementation to optimise impacts is clear and is supported by strong leadership, a culture of mutual respect and a clearly defined project scope. However, system and organisational barriers to meaningful co-production persist. Recommendations to enhance co-production include multi-stage funding processes, policy and organisational changes, expanded opportunities for co-production training, and allocation of additional project funded time. Transparent sharing of co-production processes and learnings is needed to embed co-production into routine research practice. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Each funded project was jointly led by academics and consumers. Consumers contributed to all stages of project design and implementation, ensuring their perspectives informed decision-making. An experienced consumer partnership lead contributed to data interpretation and preparation of this manuscript and is a listed author of this work.

Indexed as

Community ParticipationCooperative BehaviorWomen's HealthAcademiaAustraliaFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicQualitative Researchconsumersco‐productionpartnershipswomen's health

Identifiers

PMID41885606
PMCPMC13045500

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.