Nothing about us without us: A co‐production strategy for communities, researchers and stakeholders to identify ways of improving health and reducing inequalities

Abstract Introduction Co‐production with communities is increasingly seen as best practice that can improve the quality, relevance and effectiveness of research and service delivery. Despite this promising position, there remains uncertainty around definitions of co‐production and how to operational...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Alexandra Albert (Author), Shahid Islam (Author), Muki Haklay (Author), Rosemary R. C. McEachan (Author)
Format: Book
Published: Wiley, 2023-04-01T00:00:00Z.
Subjects:
Online Access:Connect to this object online.
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

MARC

LEADER 00000 am a22000003u 4500
001 doaj_1946c5d34e0545c9aedb24d060b41c07
042 |a dc 
100 1 0 |a Alexandra Albert  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Shahid Islam  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Muki Haklay  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Rosemary R. C. McEachan  |e author 
245 0 0 |a Nothing about us without us: A co‐production strategy for communities, researchers and stakeholders to identify ways of improving health and reducing inequalities 
260 |b Wiley,   |c 2023-04-01T00:00:00Z. 
500 |a 1369-7625 
500 |a 1369-6513 
500 |a 10.1111/hex.13709 
520 |a Abstract Introduction Co‐production with communities is increasingly seen as best practice that can improve the quality, relevance and effectiveness of research and service delivery. Despite this promising position, there remains uncertainty around definitions of co‐production and how to operationalize it. The current paper describes the development of a co‐production strategy to guide the work of the ActEarly multistakeholder preventative research programme to improve children's health in Bradford and Tower Hamlets, UK. Methods The strategy used Appreciative Inquiry (AI), an approach following a five‐step iterative process: to define (Step 1) scope and guide progress; to discover (Step 2) key issues through seven focus groups (N = 36) and eight in‐depth interviews with key stakeholders representing community groups, and the voluntary and statutory sectors; to dream (Step 3) best practice through two workshops with AI participants to review findings; to design (Step 4) a co‐production strategy building on AI findings and to deliver (Step 5) the practical guidance in the strategy. Results Nine principles for how to do co‐production well were identified: power should be shared; embrace a wide range of perspectives and skills; respect and value the lived experience; benefits should be for all involved parties; go to communities and do not expect them to come to you; work flexibly; avoid jargon and ensure availability of the right information; relationships should be built for the long‐term; co‐production activities should be adequately resourced. These principles were based on three underlying values of equality, reciprocity and agency. Conclusion The empirical insights of the paper highlight the crucial importance of adequate resources and infrastructure to deliver effective co‐production. This documentation of one approach to operationalizing co‐production serves to avert any misappropriations of the term 'co‐production' by listening to service users, stakeholders and other relevant groups, to develop trust and long‐term relationships, and build on the learning that already exists amongst such groups. Patient or Public Contribution The work was overseen by a steering group (N = 17) of individuals, both professional and members of the public with experience in undertaking co‐production, and/or with some knowledge of the context of the two ActEarly field sites, who provided regular oversight and feedback on the AI process. 
546 |a EN 
690 |a Appreciative Inquiry 
690 |a co‐production 
690 |a ethnicity 
690 |a health inequalities 
690 |a public health 
690 |a strategy development 
690 |a Medicine (General) 
690 |a R5-920 
690 |a Public aspects of medicine 
690 |a RA1-1270 
655 7 |a article  |2 local 
786 0 |n Health Expectations, Vol 26, Iss 2, Pp 836-846 (2023) 
787 0 |n https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13709 
787 0 |n https://doaj.org/toc/1369-6513 
787 0 |n https://doaj.org/toc/1369-7625 
856 4 1 |u https://doaj.org/article/1946c5d34e0545c9aedb24d060b41c07  |z Connect to this object online.