Coproduction for feasibility and pilot randomised controlled trials: learning outcomes for community partners, service users and the research team
Plain English summary Co-producing research with members of the public is increasingly recognised as a valuable process. Yet, despite these good intentions, the literature on coproduction has struggled to keep pace with the coproduction ‘movement’. There is a lack of clarity regarding acceptable lev...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2018-10-01
|
| Series: | Research Involvement and Engagement |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40900-018-0116-0 |
| _version_ | 1811210496792068096 |
|---|---|
| author | Tracey McConnell Paul Best Gavin Davidson Tom McEneaney Cherry Cantrell Mark Tully |
| author_facet | Tracey McConnell Paul Best Gavin Davidson Tom McEneaney Cherry Cantrell Mark Tully |
| author_sort | Tracey McConnell |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Plain English summary Co-producing research with members of the public is increasingly recognised as a valuable process. Yet, despite these good intentions, the literature on coproduction has struggled to keep pace with the coproduction ‘movement’. There is a lack of clarity regarding acceptable levels of involvement and attempts at standardising approaches appear generic and lack detail. Moreover, relatively little research has captured the views of all the parties involved (academics, service providers and service users). We conducted interviews with all those involved in developing a new online service for depression in Northern Ireland. Our main questions related to how these three very different groups of people worked together over a two-year period to design, develop and deliver the service (e.g. what were the benefits? What would they do differently?) We found that early involvement was a key factor as this promoted equal ownership. There was also a need to be flexible and recognise other workload pressures. Interestingly, service providers and service users were keen to become more involved in data analysis – this is one of the most under-researched and reported areas within the coproduction literature. Finally, we considered how user involvement worked within complex research designs and how this could be improved. Based on this learning, the paper concludes with a simple 3-step framework that others may wish to follow in order to improve coproduction outcomes within interventions. Abstract Background Co-production, involving members of the public in research, is increasingly encouraged by research funders. However, reports detailing involvement of the public in the entire research process from design, delivery, analysis and dissemination of findings are lacking. Furthermore, little is known about the lessons learnt from the perspective of the public and researchers; or more specifically lessons learnt when coproducing specific types of research projects, such as feasibility/pilot studies incorporating a randomised controlled trial (RCT) design. This paper aims to provide a more rounded picture of co-production based on the learning outcomes of researchers, their community partners and service users involved in a feasibility/pilot RCT study developing and evaluating an E-health Service for adults with depression. Methods Qualitative research incorporating 11 semi-structured interviews with academic team members (n = 4), community partners (n = 3) and service users with depression (n = 4) Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results Key factors for successful coproduction include - (1) early involvement at the pre-development stage, including contributing to the scientific grant application; (2) early identification of team strengths and expertise from the outset; (3) regular team meetings and contact (formal or informal) among coproduction partners; (4) a flexible and pragmatic approach to research design (particularly within RCTs); (5) shared decision making and responsibility and (6) recognition of ‘other’ pressures and providing support to each other. Findings also suggested further scope for involving community partners in data analysis and dissemination through co-authored papers. Those seeking to coproduce interventions or utilise RCT designs should consider tensions between data quality and intervention implementation and ethical issues regarding control groups. Conclusion This paper confirms previous research confirming the benefits of coproduction. However, it also highlights a number of barriers, particularly when using complex research design, such as RCTs. Learning points are summarised in an implementation model for coproducing research. This model may provide a useful guide for considering activities associated with meaningful coproduction. We urge others to test this proposed model more widely in different areas of coproduced research. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-12T04:56:43Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-3907d6afe68643ceb3ade86870599e21 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2056-7529 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-12T04:56:43Z |
| publishDate | 2018-10-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Research Involvement and Engagement |
| spelling | doaj.art-3907d6afe68643ceb3ade86870599e212022-12-22T03:47:06ZengBMCResearch Involvement and Engagement2056-75292018-10-014111110.1186/s40900-018-0116-0Coproduction for feasibility and pilot randomised controlled trials: learning outcomes for community partners, service users and the research teamTracey McConnell0Paul Best1Gavin Davidson2Tom McEneaney3Cherry Cantrell4Mark Tully5School of Social Science, Education and Social Work, Queen’s University BelfastSchool of Social Science, Education and Social Work, Queen’s University BelfastSchool of Social Science, Education and Social Work, Queen’s University BelfastAWARE NIAWARE NISchool of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen’s University BelfastPlain English summary Co-producing research with members of the public is increasingly recognised as a valuable process. Yet, despite these good intentions, the literature on coproduction has struggled to keep pace with the coproduction ‘movement’. There is a lack of clarity regarding acceptable levels of involvement and attempts at standardising approaches appear generic and lack detail. Moreover, relatively little research has captured the views of all the parties involved (academics, service providers and service users). We conducted interviews with all those involved in developing a new online service for depression in Northern Ireland. Our main questions related to how these three very different groups of people worked together over a two-year period to design, develop and deliver the service (e.g. what were the benefits? What would they do differently?) We found that early involvement was a key factor as this promoted equal ownership. There was also a need to be flexible and recognise other workload pressures. Interestingly, service providers and service users were keen to become more involved in data analysis – this is one of the most under-researched and reported areas within the coproduction literature. Finally, we considered how user involvement worked within complex research designs and how this could be improved. Based on this learning, the paper concludes with a simple 3-step framework that others may wish to follow in order to improve coproduction outcomes within interventions. Abstract Background Co-production, involving members of the public in research, is increasingly encouraged by research funders. However, reports detailing involvement of the public in the entire research process from design, delivery, analysis and dissemination of findings are lacking. Furthermore, little is known about the lessons learnt from the perspective of the public and researchers; or more specifically lessons learnt when coproducing specific types of research projects, such as feasibility/pilot studies incorporating a randomised controlled trial (RCT) design. This paper aims to provide a more rounded picture of co-production based on the learning outcomes of researchers, their community partners and service users involved in a feasibility/pilot RCT study developing and evaluating an E-health Service for adults with depression. Methods Qualitative research incorporating 11 semi-structured interviews with academic team members (n = 4), community partners (n = 3) and service users with depression (n = 4) Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results Key factors for successful coproduction include - (1) early involvement at the pre-development stage, including contributing to the scientific grant application; (2) early identification of team strengths and expertise from the outset; (3) regular team meetings and contact (formal or informal) among coproduction partners; (4) a flexible and pragmatic approach to research design (particularly within RCTs); (5) shared decision making and responsibility and (6) recognition of ‘other’ pressures and providing support to each other. Findings also suggested further scope for involving community partners in data analysis and dissemination through co-authored papers. Those seeking to coproduce interventions or utilise RCT designs should consider tensions between data quality and intervention implementation and ethical issues regarding control groups. Conclusion This paper confirms previous research confirming the benefits of coproduction. However, it also highlights a number of barriers, particularly when using complex research design, such as RCTs. Learning points are summarised in an implementation model for coproducing research. This model may provide a useful guide for considering activities associated with meaningful coproduction. We urge others to test this proposed model more widely in different areas of coproduced research.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40900-018-0116-0CoproductionCommunityPartnersChallengesLearning |
| spellingShingle | Tracey McConnell Paul Best Gavin Davidson Tom McEneaney Cherry Cantrell Mark Tully Coproduction for feasibility and pilot randomised controlled trials: learning outcomes for community partners, service users and the research team Research Involvement and Engagement Coproduction Community Partners Challenges Learning |
| title | Coproduction for feasibility and pilot randomised controlled trials: learning outcomes for community partners, service users and the research team |
| title_full | Coproduction for feasibility and pilot randomised controlled trials: learning outcomes for community partners, service users and the research team |
| title_fullStr | Coproduction for feasibility and pilot randomised controlled trials: learning outcomes for community partners, service users and the research team |
| title_full_unstemmed | Coproduction for feasibility and pilot randomised controlled trials: learning outcomes for community partners, service users and the research team |
| title_short | Coproduction for feasibility and pilot randomised controlled trials: learning outcomes for community partners, service users and the research team |
| title_sort | coproduction for feasibility and pilot randomised controlled trials learning outcomes for community partners service users and the research team |
| topic | Coproduction Community Partners Challenges Learning |
| url | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40900-018-0116-0 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT traceymcconnell coproductionforfeasibilityandpilotrandomisedcontrolledtrialslearningoutcomesforcommunitypartnersserviceusersandtheresearchteam AT paulbest coproductionforfeasibilityandpilotrandomisedcontrolledtrialslearningoutcomesforcommunitypartnersserviceusersandtheresearchteam AT gavindavidson coproductionforfeasibilityandpilotrandomisedcontrolledtrialslearningoutcomesforcommunitypartnersserviceusersandtheresearchteam AT tommceneaney coproductionforfeasibilityandpilotrandomisedcontrolledtrialslearningoutcomesforcommunitypartnersserviceusersandtheresearchteam AT cherrycantrell coproductionforfeasibilityandpilotrandomisedcontrolledtrialslearningoutcomesforcommunitypartnersserviceusersandtheresearchteam AT marktully coproductionforfeasibilityandpilotrandomisedcontrolledtrialslearningoutcomesforcommunitypartnersserviceusersandtheresearchteam |