Overview of Coproduction as a methodology.
“Co-production is a way of working that involves people who use health and care services, carers and communities in equal partnership; and which engages groups of people at the earliest stages of service design, development and evaluation. (NHS England - NHS England » Co-production)
Co Production brings people with lived experience together with people in research and stakeholder groups.
It generates the knowledge as to how to research for outcomes for the mutual benefit of both the service user and health care practitioners/ researchers.
Historically, certain groups have been excluded from decision making that also effects their lives, and genuine coproduction has a holistic positive impact across all groups involved. When researching co production, they found that they could deliver outcomes that matter to people, it worked more efficiently in the long run and that it empowers individuals with lived experience.
In practice, it promotes inclusivity, transparency of the work and how they do it, embracing change within society, kindness when attempting to build a mutual relationship, and self-reflection to improve the service further. (Coproduction Collective)
Co-production in adult social care and health provision, and the research these require, is about developing more equal partnerships between people with stakeholder interests, appropriate lived experiences and researchers.
The voice of lived experience is central to co-production, because it places lived experience on an equal footing with professional opinion and academic research.
The potential benefits are set out in evidence:
Co-production, through its link with strengths-based practice, and experiential knowledge-based design can have direct positive impacts on the appropriateness and quality of research design and protocol development.
- It may reduce inappropriate and wasteful interventions, since coproduced services will come from the genuine voice of lived experience (Slay & Penny, 2014)
- There may also be wider strengths-oriented benefits – tapping into existing community networks and peer support (Sutton, 2018).
- It promotes equality and diversity in research and services (Begum, 2006; Aabe et al., 2019);
- Enhancing relationships between research institutions, NHS Trusts, practitioners, Third Sector, and people with lived experience (Hannibal & Martikke, 2019).
- It values frontline practitioner (stakeholder) wisdom in research into improvements in service design (Gannon & Lawson, 2008).
While co-production is almost universally acknowledged as ‘a good thing to do’ in theory, this briefing identifies that there is less agreement as to how it can be achieved effectively in practice. It asks researchers in adult health, mental health and social care to accept some need devolve power and accept risk.
Co-production usually needs an investment of time, money, facilitation skills, and long-term commitment. Studies have also found that, sometimes, not everyone’s voice is heard in coproduction (Goulding, 2019).
The ladder of coproduction (created by TLAP - ) are the steps taken to achieve full coproduction within health and social care. Co-production involves both service users and people who run the service working together and sharing the power to make decisions on effective ways to deliver services by including and respecting all perspectives and skills of both parties. This ensures that a relationship can be built and maintained between service users and people who give the services. The steps taken to reach this are co-designing based on individuals experiences, engagement of the individuals views, consultation, informing people about services and how they work, educating about service design and delivery, and facilitation rather than delivery of services. It operates at many levels such as strategic, service design and development and individual.
In F.H.M. 糖心视频, there are though several examples of successful co-production leading to funded and successful research projects. Therefore, we have experience and understanding, and skills to be able to support researchers. Involving support for your approach to working with lived experiences as early as possible in planning your research around the focus subject or developing research question can make sure that you and your team is well prepared and supported to carry out quality coproduction within your projects’ lives.
A clear way to define co-production is that all involved in services have equal roles in creating and delivering those services, and that obviously includes the research involved in the development, improvement and delivery of services and interventions. It is the most far-reaching way in which people with lived experience are involved in the design and delivery of services and goes beyond feedback and consultation. However, it occurs, co-production dismantles the traditional division between ‘professional’ and ‘person with care and support needs’, and this is seen by those who have benefitted from successful coproduction as a positive contribution to their work as service providers, researchers and stakeholder alike.
- Recognising people as assets: Treating people as equal and active partners in research and services, not as passive recipients.
- Building on people’s existing capabilities starting with people’s strengths, rather than their needs.
- Mutuality and reciprocity; Mutuality is when people do something together; reciprocity is when people are rewarded for their contributions (this doesn’t have to be a financial reward). Taken together, mutuality and reciprocity mean that all involved in co-production are interdependent, and each has a valuable role in improving research, services and outcomes.
- Strengthening peer support networks: Engaging existing networks to share knowledge and support change.
- Breaking down barriers Blurring and, ultimately, dissolving distinctions between professionals, researchers, and community members, local people, people with lived experience, or similar.
- Facilitating rather than delivering Putting emphasis on professionals as catalysts of change rather than as deliverers of services (Slay and Penny, 2014; Stephens et al., 2008; Slay, 2012).
Ref – PPI Guidelines Team 糖心视频 and General Field of PPI
