Suchergebnisse

Co-production and co-design practices are increasingly being promoted to develop user-centred public services. Analysing these practices with literature on power, participation and realist social theory this article explores the power dynamics, mechanisms and impacts within co-production and co-design processes. Two case studies were evaluated using qualitative longitudinal methods: an experience-based co-design project within hospital-based breast cancer services was followed from initiation to completion, alongside a local government innovation team that used co-production and co-design techniques to enable person-centred policies and services. The two cases illustrate how co-production and co-design techniques involve facilitating, managing and co-ordinating a complex set of psychological, social, cultural and institutional interactions. Whilst existing power relations can be challenged in different ways, constant critical reflective practice and dialogue is essential to facilitate more equal relational processes within these techniques, and to institute changes at individual, local community and organisational levels.

Co-production and co-design practices are increasingly being promoted to develop user-centred public services. Analysing these practices with literature on power, participation and realist social theory this article explores the power dynamics, mechanisms and impacts within co-production and co-design processes. Two case studies were evaluated using qualitative longitudinal methods: an experience-based co-design project within hospital-based breast cancer services was followed from initiation to completion, alongside a local government innovation team that used co-production and co-design techniques to enable person-centred policies and services. The two cases illustrate how co-production and co-design techniques involve facilitating, managing and co-ordinating a complex set of psychological, social, cultural and institutional interactions. Whilst existing power relations can be challenged in different ways, constant critical reflective practice and dialogue is essential to facilitate more equal relational processes within these techniques, and to institute changes at individual, local community and organisational levels.

"EPDF and EPUB available Open Access under CC-BY-NC-ND licence. Groups most severely affected by COVID-19 have tended to be those marginalised before the pandemic and are now being largely ignored in developing responses to it.

This two-volume set of Rapid Responses explores the urgent need to put co-production and participatory approaches at the heart of responses to the pandemic and demonstrates how policymakers, health and social care practitioners, patients, service users, carers and public contributors can make this happen.

The second volume focuses on methods and means of co-producing during a pandemic. It explores a variety of case studies from across the global North and South and addresses the practical considerations of co-producing knowledge both now - at a distance - and in the future when the pandemic is over."

"EPDF and EPUB available Open Access under CC-BY-NC-ND licence. Groups most severely affected by COVID-19 have tended to be those marginalised before the pandemic and are now largely being ignored in developing responses to it.

This two-volume set of Rapid Responses explores the urgent need to put co-production and participatory approaches at the heart of responses to the pandemic and demonstrates how policymakers, health and social care practitioners, patients, service users, carers and public contributors can make this happen.

The first volume investigates how, at the outset of the pandemic, the limits of existing structures severely undermined the potential of co-production. It also gives voice to a diversity of marginalised communities to illustrate how they have been affected and to demonstrate why co-produced responses are so important both now during this pandemic and in the future."

This collaborative, qualitative study aimed to understand the impact that smartphone technology can have for survivors of human trafficking and slavery in relation to their mental health, well-being and social connections, access to services and levels of independence and isolation. The pilot project was conceived shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic by anti-slavery charity Unseen and the telecommunications company BT, in recognition of the potential of smartphone technology to enhance survivors' recovery from trauma. BT donated smartphones and SIM cards with 6-month call and data packages that Unseen distributed to survivors they were supporting. Seventy-four survivors received a smartphone; 27 survivors were interviewed and 12 Unseen staff completed a free-text survey exploring perceptions of the intervention. A well-being capability measure (ICECAP-A) was conducted with survivors at the start and end of the project. Researchers analyzed all data, triangulating across data sources. Analysis showed support staff play a key role in the success of the intervention to increase digital inclusion. Smartphones helped survivors develop skills to assist them in their move toward independent living and navigate the systems and services in their environment. The intervention was highly valuable to survivors for support, integration and access to services. Our findings suggest that suitable technology packages should be assessed for inclusion as standard support for survivors of modern slavery within the UK Government's National Referral Mechanism (NRM). Achieving this change in NRM policy will go some way to realize the United Nations 2030 Agenda, specifically SDG 3 (Good health and wellbeing for all at all ages), SDG 8 (Decent Work-inclusive and sustained economic growth) and SDG 16 (Peace, justice and strong institutions-inclusive societies and access to justice for all).

Background:The Bristol Knowledge Mobilisation (KM) Team was an unusual collective brokering model, consisting of a multi-professional team of four managers and three academics embedded in both local healthcare policymaking (aka commissioning) and academic primary care.
Aims and objectives:They aimed to encourage 'research-informed commissioning' and 'commissioning-informed research'. This paper covers context, structure, processes, advantages, challenges and impact.
Methods:Data sources from brokers included personal logs, reflective essays, exit interviews and a team workshop. These were analysed inductively using constant comparison. To obtain critical distance, three external evaluations were conducted, using interviews, observations and documentation.
Findings:Stable, solvent organisations; senior involvement with good inter-professional relationships; secure funding; and networks of engaged allies in host organisations supported the brokers. Essential elements were two-way embedding, 'buddying up', team leadership, brokers' interpersonal skills, and two-year, part-time contracts. By working collectively, the brokers fostered cross-community interactions and modelled collaborative behaviour, drawing on each other's 'insider' knowledge, networks and experience. Challenges included too many taskmasters, unrealistic expectations and work overload. However, team-brokering provided a safe space to be vulnerable, share learning, and build confidence. As host organisations benefitted most from embedded brokers, both communities noted changes in attitude, knowledge, skills and confidence. The team were more successful in fostering 'commissioning-informed research' with co-produced research grants than 'research-informed commissioning'.
Discussion and conclusions:Although still difficult, the collective support and comradery of an embedded, two-way, multi-professional team made encouraging interactions, and therefore brokering, easier. A team approach modelled collaborative behaviour and created a critical mass to affect cultural change.

Aim:
Policymaking decisions are often uninformed by research and research is rarely influenced by policymakers. To bridge this 'know-do' gap, a boundary-spanning knowledge mobilisation (KM) team was created by embedding researchers-in-residence and local policymakers into each other's organisations. Through increasing the two-way flow of knowledge via social contact, KM team members fostered collaborations and the sharing of 'mindlines', aiming to generate more relevant research bids and research-informed decision-making. This paper describes the activities of the KM team, types of knowledge and how that knowledge was exchanged to influence mindlines.

Discussion:
KM team activities were classified into: relational, dissemination, transferable skills, evaluation, research and awareness raising. Knowledge available included: profession-specific (for example, research methods, healthcare landscape), insider (for example, relational, organisation and experiential) and KM theory and practice. KM team members brokered relationships through conversations interweaving different types of knowledge, particularly organisational and relational. Academics were interested in policymakers' knowledge of healthcare policy and the commissioning landscape. More than research results, policymakers valued researchers' methodological knowledge. Both groups appreciated each other as 'critical friends'.

Conclusion:
To increase research impact, 'expertise into practice' could be leveraged, specifically researchers' critical thinking and research methodology skills. As policymakers' expertise into practice also bridges the know-do gap, future impact models could focus less on evidence into practice and more on fostering this mutual flow of expertise. Embedded knowledge brokers from the two communities working in teams can influence the mindlines of both. These ambassadors can create improvements in 'inter-cultural competence' to draw academia and policymaking closer.

EPDF and EPUB available Open Access under CC-BY-NC-ND licence. Groups most severely affected by COVID-19 have tended to be those marginalised before the pandemic and are now being largely ignored in developing responses to it. This two-volume set of Rapid Responses explores the urgent need to put co-production and participatory approaches at the heart of responses to the pandemic and demonstrates how policymakers, health and social care practitioners, patients, service users, carers and public contributors can make this happen. The second volume focuses on methods and means of co-producing during a pandemic. It explores a variety of case studies from across the global North and South and addresses the practical considerations of co-producing knowledge both now - at a distance - and in the future when the pandemic is over