Measurement and outcomes of co-production in health and social care: a systematic review of empirical studies
Background Co-production is promoted as an effective way of improving the quality of health and social care but the diversity of measures used in individual studies makes their outcomes difficult to interpret.Objective The objective is to explore how empirical studies in health and social care have...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2023-09-01
|
| Series: | BMJ Open |
| Online Access: | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/13/9/e073808.full |
| _version_ | 1797668030567677952 |
|---|---|
| author | Glenn Robert Sofia Kjellström Annika Nordin Kristina Areskoug Josefsson Daniel Masterson |
| author_facet | Glenn Robert Sofia Kjellström Annika Nordin Kristina Areskoug Josefsson Daniel Masterson |
| author_sort | Glenn Robert |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background Co-production is promoted as an effective way of improving the quality of health and social care but the diversity of measures used in individual studies makes their outcomes difficult to interpret.Objective The objective is to explore how empirical studies in health and social care have described the outcomes of co-production projects and how those outcomes were measured.Design and methods A scoping review forms the basis for this systematic review. Search terms for the concepts (co-produc* OR coproduc* OR co-design* OR codesign*) and contexts (health OR ‘public service* OR “public sector”) were used in: CINAHL with Full Text (EBSCOHost), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (Wiley), MEDLINE (EBSCOHost), PsycINFO (ProQuest), PubMed (legacy) and Scopus (Elsevier). There was no date limit. Papers describing the process, original data and outcomes of co-production were included. Protocols, reviews and theoretical, conceptual and psychometric papers were excluded. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline was followed. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool underpinned the quality of included papers.Results 43 empirical studies were included. They were conducted in 12 countries, with the UK representing >50% of all papers. No paper was excluded due to the Mixed Methods Quality Appraisal screening and 60% of included papers were mixed methods studies. The extensive use of self-developed study-specific measures hampered comparisons and cumulative knowledge-building. Overall, the studies reported positive outcomes. Co-production was reported to be positively experienced and provided important learning.Conclusions The lack of common approaches to measuring co-production is more problematic than the plurality of measurements itself. Co-production should be measured from three perspectives: outputs of co-production processes, the experiences of participating in co-production processes and outcomes of co-production. Both self-developed study-specific measures and established measures should be used. The maturity of this research field would benefit from the development and use of reporting guidelines. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-11T20:23:08Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-3b87d449c1ce4b73a99d0bf6c78ebcd3 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2044-6055 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-11T20:23:08Z |
| publishDate | 2023-09-01 |
| publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMJ Open |
| spelling | doaj.art-3b87d449c1ce4b73a99d0bf6c78ebcd32023-10-02T23:00:07ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Open2044-60552023-09-0113910.1136/bmjopen-2023-073808Measurement and outcomes of co-production in health and social care: a systematic review of empirical studiesGlenn Robert0Sofia Kjellström1Annika Nordin2Kristina Areskoug Josefsson3Daniel Masterson41 Department of Quality improvement and Leadership, Jönköping Academy of Improvement of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University School of Health and Welfare, Jonkoping, Sweden1 Department of Quality improvement and Leadership, Jönköping Academy of Improvement of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University School of Health and Welfare, Jonkoping, Sweden1 Department of Quality improvement and Leadership, Jönköping Academy of Improvement of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University School of Health and Welfare, Jonkoping, Sweden1 Department of Quality improvement and Leadership, Jönköping Academy of Improvement of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University School of Health and Welfare, Jonkoping, Sweden1 Department of Quality improvement and Leadership, Jönköping Academy of Improvement of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University School of Health and Welfare, Jonkoping, SwedenBackground Co-production is promoted as an effective way of improving the quality of health and social care but the diversity of measures used in individual studies makes their outcomes difficult to interpret.Objective The objective is to explore how empirical studies in health and social care have described the outcomes of co-production projects and how those outcomes were measured.Design and methods A scoping review forms the basis for this systematic review. Search terms for the concepts (co-produc* OR coproduc* OR co-design* OR codesign*) and contexts (health OR ‘public service* OR “public sector”) were used in: CINAHL with Full Text (EBSCOHost), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (Wiley), MEDLINE (EBSCOHost), PsycINFO (ProQuest), PubMed (legacy) and Scopus (Elsevier). There was no date limit. Papers describing the process, original data and outcomes of co-production were included. Protocols, reviews and theoretical, conceptual and psychometric papers were excluded. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline was followed. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool underpinned the quality of included papers.Results 43 empirical studies were included. They were conducted in 12 countries, with the UK representing >50% of all papers. No paper was excluded due to the Mixed Methods Quality Appraisal screening and 60% of included papers were mixed methods studies. The extensive use of self-developed study-specific measures hampered comparisons and cumulative knowledge-building. Overall, the studies reported positive outcomes. Co-production was reported to be positively experienced and provided important learning.Conclusions The lack of common approaches to measuring co-production is more problematic than the plurality of measurements itself. Co-production should be measured from three perspectives: outputs of co-production processes, the experiences of participating in co-production processes and outcomes of co-production. Both self-developed study-specific measures and established measures should be used. The maturity of this research field would benefit from the development and use of reporting guidelines.https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/13/9/e073808.full |
| spellingShingle | Glenn Robert Sofia Kjellström Annika Nordin Kristina Areskoug Josefsson Daniel Masterson Measurement and outcomes of co-production in health and social care: a systematic review of empirical studies BMJ Open |
| title | Measurement and outcomes of co-production in health and social care: a systematic review of empirical studies |
| title_full | Measurement and outcomes of co-production in health and social care: a systematic review of empirical studies |
| title_fullStr | Measurement and outcomes of co-production in health and social care: a systematic review of empirical studies |
| title_full_unstemmed | Measurement and outcomes of co-production in health and social care: a systematic review of empirical studies |
| title_short | Measurement and outcomes of co-production in health and social care: a systematic review of empirical studies |
| title_sort | measurement and outcomes of co production in health and social care a systematic review of empirical studies |
| url | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/13/9/e073808.full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT glennrobert measurementandoutcomesofcoproductioninhealthandsocialcareasystematicreviewofempiricalstudies AT sofiakjellstrom measurementandoutcomesofcoproductioninhealthandsocialcareasystematicreviewofempiricalstudies AT annikanordin measurementandoutcomesofcoproductioninhealthandsocialcareasystematicreviewofempiricalstudies AT kristinaareskougjosefsson measurementandoutcomesofcoproductioninhealthandsocialcareasystematicreviewofempiricalstudies AT danielmasterson measurementandoutcomesofcoproductioninhealthandsocialcareasystematicreviewofempiricalstudies |