Evaluating research co-production: protocol for the Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro) framework
Abstract Background Research co-production is an umbrella term used to describe research users and researchers working together to generate knowledge. Research co-production is used to create knowledge that is relevant to current challenges and to increase uptake of that knowledge into practice, pro...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2022-03-01
|
| Series: | Implementation Science Communications |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-022-00265-7 |
| _version_ | 1828852884250296320 |
|---|---|
| author | Robert K. D. McLean Fred Carden Ian D. Graham Alice B. Aiken Rebecca Armstrong Judy Bray Christine E. Cassidy Olivia Daub Erica Di Ruggiero Leslie A. Fierro Michelle Gagnon Alison M. Hutchinson Roman Kislov Anita Kothari Sara Kreindler Chris McCutcheon Jessica Reszel Gayle Scarrow |
| author_facet | Robert K. D. McLean Fred Carden Ian D. Graham Alice B. Aiken Rebecca Armstrong Judy Bray Christine E. Cassidy Olivia Daub Erica Di Ruggiero Leslie A. Fierro Michelle Gagnon Alison M. Hutchinson Roman Kislov Anita Kothari Sara Kreindler Chris McCutcheon Jessica Reszel Gayle Scarrow |
| author_sort | Robert K. D. McLean |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Research co-production is an umbrella term used to describe research users and researchers working together to generate knowledge. Research co-production is used to create knowledge that is relevant to current challenges and to increase uptake of that knowledge into practice, programs, products, and/or policy. Yet, rigorous theories and methods to assess the quality of co-production are limited. Here we describe a framework for assessing the quality of research co-production—Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro)—and outline our field test of this approach. Methods Using a co-production approach, we aim to field test the relevance and utility of the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework. To do so, we will recruit participants who have led research co-production projects from the international Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network. We aim to sample 16 to 20 co-production project leads, assign these participants to dyadic groups (8 to 10 dyads), train each participant in the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework using deliberative workshops and oversee a simulation assessment exercise using RQ+ 4 Co-Pro within dyadic groups. To study this experience, we use a qualitative design to collect participant demographic information and project demographic information and will use in-depth semi-structured interviews to collect data related to the experience each participant has using the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework. Discussion This study will yield knowledge about a new way to assess research co-production. Specifically, it will address the relevance and utility of using RQ+ 4 Co-Pro, a framework that includes context as an inseparable component of research, identifies dimensions of quality matched to the aims of co-production, and applies a systematic and transferable evaluative method for reaching conclusions. This is a needed area of innovation for research co-production to reach its full potential. The findings may benefit co-producers interested in understanding the quality of their work, but also other stewards of research co-production. Accordingly, we undertake this study as a co-production team representing multiple perspectives from across the research enterprise, such as funders, journal editors, university administrators, and government and health organization leaders. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-13T00:02:50Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-028fa709d45f4090b091e02fd8888b71 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2662-2211 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-13T00:02:50Z |
| publishDate | 2022-03-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Implementation Science Communications |
| spelling | doaj.art-028fa709d45f4090b091e02fd8888b712022-12-22T00:06:21ZengBMCImplementation Science Communications2662-22112022-03-013111210.1186/s43058-022-00265-7Evaluating research co-production: protocol for the Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro) frameworkRobert K. D. McLean0Fred Carden1Ian D. Graham2Alice B. Aiken3Rebecca Armstrong4Judy Bray5Christine E. Cassidy6Olivia Daub7Erica Di Ruggiero8Leslie A. Fierro9Michelle Gagnon10Alison M. Hutchinson11Roman Kislov12Anita Kothari13Sara Kreindler14Chris McCutcheon15Jessica Reszel16Gayle Scarrow17Policy and Evaluation Division, International Development Research CentreUsing Evidence Inc.Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute & Schools of Epidemiology and Public Health & Nursing, University of OttawaDalhousie UniversityResearch and Evaluation Branch, National Disability Insurance AgencyCanadian Cancer SocietySchool of Nursing, Dalhousie UniversityIntegrated Knowledge Translation Research Network, Ottawa Hospital Research InstituteDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of TorontoMax Bell School of Public Policy, McGill UniversityConsultantSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety in the Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, GeelongFaculty of Business and Law, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK & School of Health Sciences, The University of ManchesterSchool of Health Studies, Western UniversityDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of ManitobaIntegrated Knowledge Translation Research Network, Ottawa Hospital Research InstituteOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada & School of Nursing, University of OttawaMichael Smith Health Research B.C.Abstract Background Research co-production is an umbrella term used to describe research users and researchers working together to generate knowledge. Research co-production is used to create knowledge that is relevant to current challenges and to increase uptake of that knowledge into practice, programs, products, and/or policy. Yet, rigorous theories and methods to assess the quality of co-production are limited. Here we describe a framework for assessing the quality of research co-production—Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro)—and outline our field test of this approach. Methods Using a co-production approach, we aim to field test the relevance and utility of the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework. To do so, we will recruit participants who have led research co-production projects from the international Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network. We aim to sample 16 to 20 co-production project leads, assign these participants to dyadic groups (8 to 10 dyads), train each participant in the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework using deliberative workshops and oversee a simulation assessment exercise using RQ+ 4 Co-Pro within dyadic groups. To study this experience, we use a qualitative design to collect participant demographic information and project demographic information and will use in-depth semi-structured interviews to collect data related to the experience each participant has using the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework. Discussion This study will yield knowledge about a new way to assess research co-production. Specifically, it will address the relevance and utility of using RQ+ 4 Co-Pro, a framework that includes context as an inseparable component of research, identifies dimensions of quality matched to the aims of co-production, and applies a systematic and transferable evaluative method for reaching conclusions. This is a needed area of innovation for research co-production to reach its full potential. The findings may benefit co-producers interested in understanding the quality of their work, but also other stewards of research co-production. Accordingly, we undertake this study as a co-production team representing multiple perspectives from across the research enterprise, such as funders, journal editors, university administrators, and government and health organization leaders.https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-022-00265-7 |
| spellingShingle | Robert K. D. McLean Fred Carden Ian D. Graham Alice B. Aiken Rebecca Armstrong Judy Bray Christine E. Cassidy Olivia Daub Erica Di Ruggiero Leslie A. Fierro Michelle Gagnon Alison M. Hutchinson Roman Kislov Anita Kothari Sara Kreindler Chris McCutcheon Jessica Reszel Gayle Scarrow Evaluating research co-production: protocol for the Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro) framework Implementation Science Communications |
| title | Evaluating research co-production: protocol for the Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro) framework |
| title_full | Evaluating research co-production: protocol for the Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro) framework |
| title_fullStr | Evaluating research co-production: protocol for the Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro) framework |
| title_full_unstemmed | Evaluating research co-production: protocol for the Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro) framework |
| title_short | Evaluating research co-production: protocol for the Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro) framework |
| title_sort | evaluating research co production protocol for the research quality plus for co production rq 4 co pro framework |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-022-00265-7 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT robertkdmclean evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework AT fredcarden evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework AT iandgraham evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework AT alicebaiken evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework AT rebeccaarmstrong evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework AT judybray evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework AT christineecassidy evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework AT oliviadaub evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework AT ericadiruggiero evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework AT leslieafierro evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework AT michellegagnon evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework AT alisonmhutchinson evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework AT romankislov evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework AT anitakothari evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework AT sarakreindler evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework AT chrismccutcheon evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework AT jessicareszel evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework AT gaylescarrow evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework |