Research co-design in health: a rapid overview of reviews

Peter Slattery, Alexander K Saeri, Peter Bragge, Peter Slattery, Alexander K Saeri, Peter Bragge

Abstract

Background: Billions of dollars are lost annually in health research that fails to create meaningful benefits for patients. Engaging in research co-design - the meaningful involvement of end-users in research - may help address this research waste. This rapid overview of reviews addressed three related questions, namely (1) what approaches to research co-design exist in health settings? (2) What activities do these research co-design approaches involve? (3) What do we know about the effectiveness of existing research co-design approaches? The review focused on the study planning phase of research, defined as the point up to which the research question and study design are finalised.

Methods: Reviews of research co-design were systematically identified using a rapid overview of reviews approach (PROSPERO: CRD42019123034). The search strategy encompassed three academic databases, three grey literature databases, and a hand-search of the journal Research Involvement and Engagement. Two reviewers independently conducted the screening and data extraction and resolved disagreements through discussion. Disputes were resolved through discussion with a senior author (PB). One reviewer performed quality assessment. The results were narratively synthesised.

Results: A total of 26 records (reporting on 23 reviews) met the inclusion criteria. Reviews varied widely in their application of 'research co-design' and their application contexts, scope and theoretical foci. The research co-design approaches identified involved interactions with end-users outside of study planning, such as recruitment and dissemination. Activities involved in research co-design included focus groups, interviews and surveys. The effectiveness of research co-design has rarely been evaluated empirically or experimentally; however, qualitative exploration has described the positive and negative outcomes associated with co-design. The research provided many recommendations for conducting research co-design, including training participating end-users in research skills, having regular communication between researchers and end-users, setting clear end-user expectations, and assigning set roles to all parties involved in co-design.

Conclusions: Research co-design appears to be widely used but seldom described or evaluated in detail. Though it has rarely been tested empirically or experimentally, existing research suggests that it can benefit researchers, practitioners, research processes and research outcomes. Realising the potential of research co-design may require the development of clearer and more consistent terminology, better reporting of the activities involved and better evaluation.

Keywords: Research co-design; community–academic partnership; participatory research; patient and public involvement; research engagement.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. The funder, Transport Accident Commission (TAC), Victoria, Australia, commissioned the review as part of a larger research co-design project to improve the process and outcomes of the health research it funds. However, the views and opinions expressed herein are those of the review authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the TAC.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flow diagram for rapid overview of reviews in health research co-design

References

    1. Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Paul Glasziou and Iain Chalmers: Is 85% of health research really “wasted”? The BMJ Opinion. 2016.
    1. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of evidence. Lancet. 2009;374:86–89. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9.
    1. Ioannidis JPA. Why most clinical research is not useful. PLoS Med. 2016;13:e1002049. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002049.
    1. Oliver S, Gray J. A bibliography of research reports about patients’, clinicians’ and researchers’ priorities for new research. London: James Lind Alliance; 2006.
    1. Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:89. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-89.
    1. Lee DJ, Avulova S, Conwill R, Barocas DA. Patient engagement in the design and execution of urologic oncology research. Urol Oncol. 2017;35:552–558. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.07.002.
    1. Manafo E, Petermann L, Mason-Lai P, Vandall-Walker V. Patient engagement in Canada: a scoping review of the “how” and “what” of patient engagement in health research. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16:5. doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0282-4.
    1. Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, Suleman R. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2014;17:637–650. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x.
    1. Morley RF, Norman G, Golder S, Griffith P. A systematic scoping review of the evidence for consumer involvement in organisations undertaking systematic reviews: focus on Cochrane. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2:36. doi: 10.1186/s40900-016-0049-4.
    1. Oliver S, Clarke-Jones L, Rees R, Milne R, Buchanan P, Gabbay J, Gyte G, Oakley A, Stein K. Involving consumers in research and development agenda setting for the NHS: developing an evidence-based approach. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:1–148. doi: 10.3310/hta8150.
    1. Haijes HA, van Thiel GJMW. Participatory methods in pediatric participatory research: a systematic review. Pediatr Res. 2016;79:676–683. doi: 10.1038/pr.2015.279.
    1. Schilling I, Gerhardus A. Methods for involving older people in health research-a review of the literature. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(12):E1476. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14121476.
    1. Yoshida S, Wazny K, Cousens S, Chan KY. Setting health research priorities using the CHNRI method: III. Involving stakeholders. J Glob Health. 2016;6:010303. doi: 10.7189/jogh.06.010303.
    1. Guise J-M, O’Haire C, McPheeters M, Most C, Labrant L, Lee K, Barth Cottrell EK, Graham E. A practice-based tool for engaging stakeholders in future research: a synthesis of current practices. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:666–674. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.12.010.
    1. Salsberg J, Parry D, Pluye P, Macridis S, Herbert CP, Macaulay AC. Successful strategies to engage research partners for translating evidence into action in community health: a critical review. J Environ Public Health. 2015;2015:191856. doi: 10.1155/2015/191856.
    1. Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, Grimshaw J, Moher D. Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev. 2012;1:10. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-10.
    1. Tricco AC, Langlois EV, Straus SE. Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: a practical guide. Geneva: Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research World Health Organization; 2017.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group TP. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
    1. PCORI. . Accessed 31 Jan 2020.
    1. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, Porter AC, Tugwell P, Moher D, Bouter LM. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-10.
    1. Pieper D, Buechter RB, Li L, Prediger B, Eikermann M. Systematic review found AMSTAR, but not R(evised)-AMSTAR, to have good measurement properties. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68:574–583. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.12.009.
    1. Veritas health innovation covidence systematic review software. Melbourne.. Accessed 31 Jan 2020.
    1. Boote J, Baird W, Sutton A. Public involvement in the systematic review process in health and social care: a narrative review of case examples. Health Policy. 2011;102:105–116. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2011.05.002.
    1. Camden C, Shikako-Thomas K, Nguyen T, Graham E, Thomas A, Sprung J, Morris C, Russell DJ. Engaging stakeholders in rehabilitation research: a scoping review of strategies used in partnerships and evaluation of impacts. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37:1390–1400. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2014.963705.
    1. Esmail L, Moore E, Rein A. Evaluating patient and stakeholder engagement in research: moving from theory to practice. J Comp Eff Res. 2015;4:133–145. doi: 10.2217/cer.14.79.
    1. Miller CL, Mott K, Cousins M, Miller S, Johnson A, Lawson T, Wesselingh S. Integrating consumer engagement in health and medical research - an Australian framework. Health Res Policy Syst. 2017;15:9. doi: 10.1186/s12961-017-0171-2.
    1. Frankena TK, Naaldenberg J, Cardol M, Linehan C, van Schrojenstein Lantman-de Valk H. Active involvement of people with intellectual disabilities in health research – a structured literature review. Res Dev Disabil. 2015;45–46:271–283. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2015.08.004.
    1. Drahota A, Meza RD, Brikho B, Naaf M, Estabillo JA, Gomez ED, Vejnoska SF, Dufek S, Stahmer AC, Aarons GA. Community-academic partnerships: a systematic review of the state of the literature and recommendations for future research. Milbank Q. 2016;94:163–214. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12184.
    1. Cukor D, Cohen LM, Cope EL, et al. Patient and other stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research institute funded studies of patients with kidney diseases. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016;11:1703–1712. doi: 10.2215/CJN.09780915.
    1. Boote J, Baird W, Sutton A. Involving the public in systematic reviews: a narrative review of organizational approaches and eight case examples. J Comp Eff Res. 2012;1:409–420. doi: 10.2217/cer.12.46.
    1. Bailey S, Boddy K, Briscoe S, Morris C. Involving disabled children and young people as partners in research: a systematic review. Child Care Health Dev. 2015;41:505–514. doi: 10.1111/cch.12197.
    1. Di Lorito C, Bosco A, Birt L, Hassiotis A. Co-research with adults with intellectual disability: a systematic review. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2018;31:669–686. doi: 10.1111/jar.12435.
    1. Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Seers K, Herron-Marx S, Bayliss H. The PIRICOM Study: a systematic review of the conceptualisation, measurement, impact and outcomes of patients and public involvement in health and social care research. 2010.
    1. Fudge N, Wolfe CDA, McKevitt C. Involving older people in health research. Age Ageing. 2007;36:492–500. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afm029.
    1. Puts MTE, Sattar S, Ghodraty-Jabloo V, Hsu T, Fitch M, Szumacher E, Ayala AP, Alibhai SMH. Patient engagement in research with older adults with cancer. J Geriatr Oncol. 2017;8:391–396. doi: 10.1016/j.jgo.2017.05.002.
    1. Boote J, Baird W, Beecroft C. Public involvement at the design stage of primary health research: a narrative review of case examples. Health Policy. 2010;95:10–23. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.11.007.
    1. Oliver SR, Rees RW, Clarke-Jones L, Milne R, Oakley AR, Gabbay J, Stein K, Buchanan P, Gyte G. A multidimensional conceptual framework for analysing public involvement in health services research. Health Expect. 2008;11:72–84. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00476.x.
    1. INVOLVE . Guidance on co-producing a research project. Southampton: INVOLVE; 2018.
    1. Campbell HJ, Vanderhoven D. Knowledge that matters: realising the potential of co-production. Manchester: N8 Research Partnership; 2016.
    1. Beckett K, Farr M, Kothari A, Wye L, le May A. Embracing complexity and uncertainty to create impact: exploring the processes and transformative potential of co-produced research through development of a social impact model. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16:118. doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0375-0.
    1. Gagliardi AR, Berta W, Kothari A, Boyko J, Urquhart R. Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health care: a scoping review. Implement Sci. 2016;11:38. doi: 10.1186/s13012-016-0399-1.
    1. Davies HT, Powell AE, Nutley SM. Mobilising knowledge to improve UK health care: learning from other countries and other sectors – a multimethod mapping study. Southampton: NIHR Journals Library; 2015.
    1. INVOLVE . Co-production in action: number one. Southampton: INVOLVE; 2019.
    1. Voorberg WH, Bekkers VJJM, Tummers LG. A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Manag Rev. 2015;17:1333–1357. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2014.930505.
    1. Osborne SP, Radnor Z, Strokosch K. Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: a suitable case for treatment? Public Manag Rev. 2016;18:639–653. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2015.1111927.
    1. Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ. 2017;358:j3453. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j3453.
    1. Staniszewska S, Brett J, Mockford C, Barber R. The GRIPP checklist: strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:391–399. doi: 10.1017/S0266462311000481.
    1. Murtagh MJ, Minion JT, Turner A, Wilson RC, Blell M, Ochieng C, Murtagh B, Roberts S, Butters OW, Burton PR. The ECOUTER methodology for stakeholder engagement in translational research. BMC Med Ethics. 2017;18:24. doi: 10.1186/s12910-017-0167-z.
    1. Astbury B, Leeuw FL. Unpacking black boxes: mechanisms and theory building in evaluation. Am J Eval. 2010;31:363–381. doi: 10.1177/1098214010371972.
    1. Mark MM, Henry GT. The mechanisms and outcomes of evaluation influence. Evaluation. 2004;10:35–57. doi: 10.1177/1356389004042326.
    1. Stroh DP. Systems thinking for social change: a practical guide to solving complex problems, avoiding unintended consequences, and achieving lasting results. Hartford: Chelsea Green Publishing; 2015.
    1. Midgley G. Systems thinking. London: Sage; 2003.
    1. Fogg BJ (2009) A behavior model for persuasive design. In: Proceedings of the Persuasive Technology, Fourth International Conference, PERSUASIVE. doi: 10.1145/1541948.1541999.
    1. Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011;6:42. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-42.
    1. Algate F, Gallagher R, Nguyen S, Ruda S, Sanders M. EAST: four simple ways to apply behavioural insights. 2014.
    1. Watt A, Cameron A, Sturm L, Lathlean T, Babidge W, Blamey S, Facey K, Hailey D, Norderhaug I, Maddern G. Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: an inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:133–139. doi: 10.1017/S0266462308080185.
    1. Baethge C, Goldbeck-Wood S, Mertens S. SANRA — a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019;4:5. doi: 10.1186/s41073-019-0064-8.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere