Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Co-Producing and Co-Designing
  • Cited by 68
      • Glenn Robert, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King’s College London, Louise Locock, Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Oli Williams, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King’s College London, Jocelyn Cornwell, The Point of Care Foundation, London, Sara Donetto, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King’s College London, Joanna Goodrich, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King’s College London
      Show more authors
      • Open Access
      You have digital access to this book
    • Select format
    • Publisher:
      Cambridge University Press
      Publication date:
      17 August 2022
      08 September 2022
      ISBN:
      9781009237024
      9781009237031
      DOI:
      https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009237024
      Creative Commons:
      Creative Common License - CC Creative Common License - BY Creative Common License - NC Creative Common License - ND
      This content is Open Access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0.
      https://creativecommons.org/creativelicenses
      Dimensions:
      Weight & Pages:
      Dimensions:
      (229 x 152 mm)
      Weight & Pages:
      0.09kg, 54 Pages
      • Subjects:
      Medicine: General Interest, Medicine
      Series:
      Elements of Improving Quality and Safety in Healthcare
    Open Access
    You have digital access to this book
    Selected: Digital
    View content
    Add to cart View cart Buy from Cambridge.org
    Subjects:
    Medicine: General Interest, Medicine
    Series:
    Elements of Improving Quality and Safety in Healthcare
    Information

    Book description

    Many healthcare improvement approaches originated in manufacturing, where end users are framed as consumers. But in healthcare, greater recognition of the complexity of relationships between patients, staff, and services (beyond a provider-consumer exchange) is generating new insights and approaches to healthcare improvement informed directly by patient and staff experience. Co-production sees patients as active contributors to their own health and explores how interactions with staff and services can best be supported. Co-design is a related but distinct creative process, where patients and staff work in partnership to improve services or develop interventions. Both approaches are promoted for their technocratic benefits (better experiences, more effective and safer services) and democratic rationales (enabling inclusivity and equity), but the evidence base remains limited. This Element explores the origins of co-production and co-design, the development of approaches in healthcare, and associated challenges; in reviewing the evidence, it highlights the implications for practice and research. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.

    References

    References

    1.Dixon-Woods, M. How to improve healthcare improvement – an essay by Mary Dixon-Woods. BMJ 2019; 366: l5514. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l5514.
    2.Batalden, P. Getting more health from healthcare: quality improvement must acknowledge patient coproduction – an essay by Paul Batalden. BMJ 2018; 1: k3617. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k3617.
    3.Verschuere, B, Vanleene, D, Steen, T, Brandsen, T. Democratic co-production: concepts and determinants. In: Brandsen, T, Steen, T, Verschuere, B, editors. Co-Production and Co-Creation: Engaging Citizens in Public Services. New York: Routledge; 2018: 243–51. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315204956.
    4.Farr, M. Power dynamics and collaborative mechanisms in co-production and co-design processes. Crit Soc Policy 2018; 38: 623–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018317747444.
    5.Williams, O, Robert, G, Martin, GP, Hanna, E, O’Hara, J. Is co-production just really good PPI? Making sense of patient and public involvement and co-production networks. In: Bevir M, Waring J, editors. Decentring Health and Care Networks. London: Palgrave; 2020: 213–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40889-3.
    6.Osborne, SP, Radnor, Z, Strokosch, K. Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: a suitable case for treatment? Public Manage Rev 2016; 18: 639–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1111927.
    7.Fugini, M, Bracci, E, Sicilia, M, editors. Co-production in the Public Sector. Experiences and Challenges. Springer; 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30558-5.
    8.Légaré, F, Adekpedjou, R, Stacey, D, et al. Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 7: CD006732. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006732.pub4.
    9.Social Care Institute for Excellence. Co-production in social care: what it is and how to do it. www.scie.org.uk/publications/guides/guide51/what-is-coproduction/principles-of-coproduction.asp (accessed 17 February 2022).
    10.Ostrom, E, Parks, RB, Whitaker, GP, et al. The public service production process: a framework for analyzing police services. Policy Stud J 1978; 7: 381–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1978.tb01782.x.
    11.Brudney, JL, England, RE. Toward a definition of the coproduction concept. Publ Admin Rev 1983; 43: 59–65. https://doi.org/:10.2307/975300.
    12.Ewert, B, Evers, A. An ambiguous concept: on the meanings of co-production for health care users and user organizations. VOLUNTAS: Int J Volunt Nonprofit Organizations 2014; 25: 425–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9345-2.
    13.Osborne, SP, Radnor, Z, Nasi, G. A new theory for public service management? Toward a (public) service-dominant approach. Am Rev Pub Adm 2012; 43: 135–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074012466935.
    14.Osborne, SP, Strokosch, K. It takes two to tango? Understanding the co-production of public services by integrating the services management and public administration perspectives. Brit J Manage 2013; 24: S31–S47. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12010.
    15.Marshall, M, Davies, H, Ward, V, et al. Optimising the impact of health services research on the organisation and delivery of health services: a mixed-methods study. Health Soc Care Deliv Res 2022; 10(3). https://doi.org/10.3310/HFUU3193.
    16.Martin, S. Co-production of social research: strategies for engaged scholarship. Publ Money Manag 2010; 30: 211–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2010.492180.
    17.Batalden, M, Batalden, P, Margolis, P, et al. Coproduction of healthcare service. BMJ Qual Saf 2016; 25: 509–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004315.
    18.Dudau, A, Glennon, R, Verschuere, B. Following the yellow brick road? (Dis)enchantment with co-design, co-production and value co-creation in public services. Public Manage Rev 2019; 21: 1577–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1653604.
    19.Parks, RB, Baker, PC, Kiser, L, et al. Consumers as coproducers of public services: some economic and institutional considerations. Policy Stud J 1981; 9: 1001–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1981.tb01208.x.
    20.Bovaird, T, Loeffler, E. We’re all in this together: harnessing user and community co-production of public outcomes. In: Staite, C, editor. Making Sense of the Future: Do We Need a New Model of Public Services? Birmingham: Institute of Local Government Studies, University of Birmingham; 2013. www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-social-sciences/government-society/inlogov/publications/2013/chapter-4-bovaird-loeffler.pdf (accessed 17 February 2022).
    21.Brandsen, T, Steen, T, Verschuere, B, editors. Co-Production and Co-Creation: Engaging Citizens in Public Services. New York: Routledge; 2018. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315204956.
    22.Robert, G, Donetto, S, Williams, O. Co-designing healthcare services with patients. In: Loeffler, E, Bovaird, T, editors. The Palgrave Handbook of Co-Production of Public Services and Outcomes. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2021: 313–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53705-0.
    23.Schuler, D, Namioka, A, editors. Participatory Design: Principles and Practices. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1993.
    24.Reason, P, Bradbury, H, editors. The SAGE Handbook of Action Research. Participative Inquiry and Practice, 1st edition. London: Sage; 2001.
    25.Sanders, EB-N, Stappers, P. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign 2008; 4: 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068.
    26.Sanders, EB-N, Stappers, P. Convivial Toolbox. Amsterdam: BIS; 2012.
    27.Tsekleves, E, Cooper, R, editors. Design for Health. London: Routledge; 2017.
    28.Design Council. Framework for innovation: Design Council’s evolved Double Diamond; 17 May 2019. www.designcouncil.org.uk/our-work/skills-learning/tools-frameworks/framework-for-innovation-design-councils-evolved-double-diamond (accessed 27 June 2022).
    29.Arnold, JE, Clancey, WJ. Creative Engineering: Promoting Innovation by Thinking Differently. Stanford: Stanford Digital Repository; 1969. http://purl.stanford.edu/jb100vs5745 (accessed 17 February 2022).
    30.Archer, LB. Systematic Method for Designers. London: Council of Industrial Design; 1965.
    31.Jun, T, Hignett, S, Clarkson, PJ. creativity, Design. In: Dixon-Woods, M, Brown, K, Marjanovic, S, et al., editors. Elements of Improving Quality and Safety in Healthcare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; forthcoming.
    32.Drew, C. The Double Diamond, 15 years on. Design Council; 2 September 2019. https://medium.com/design-council/the-double-diamond-15-years-on-8c7bc594610e (accessed 17 February 2022).
    33.Cross, N. Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies 1982; 3: 221–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(82)90040-0.
    34.Pfannstiel, MA, Rasche, C, editors. Service Design and Service Thinking in Healthcare and Hospital Management. Theory, Concepts, Practice. Switzerland: Springer; 2019.
    35.Sangiorgi, D, Prendiville, A, editors. Designing for Service. Key Issues and New Directions. London: Bloomsbury; 2017.
    36.Meroni, A, Sangiorgi, D. Design for Services. Farnham: Gower; 2011.
    37.Bate, SP, Robert, G. Experience-based design: from redesigning the system around the patient to co-designing services with the patient. Qual Saf Health Care 2006; 15: 307–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2005.016527.
    38.Bate, SP, Robert, G. Bringing User Experience to Healthcare Improvement: The Concepts, Methods and Practices of Experience-Based Design. Oxford: Radcliffe; 2007.
    39.Robert, G. Participatory action research: using experience-based co-design to improve the quality of health care services. In: Ziebland, S, Coulter, A, Calabrase, JD, Locock, L, editors. Understanding and Using Health Experiences: Improving Patient Care. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665372.003.0014.
    40.Robert, G, Cornwell, J, Locock, L, et al. Patients and staff as co-designers of health care services. BMJ 2015; 350: g7714. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7714.
    41.Gilardi, S, Guglielmetti, C, Marsilio, M, Sorrentino, M. Co-production in healthcare: moving patient engagement towards a managerial approach. In: Fugini, M, Bracci, E, Sicilia, M, editors. Co-production in the Public Sector: Experiences and Challenges. Springer; 2016: 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30558-5.
    42.Elwyn, G, Nelson, E, Hager, A, et al. Coproduction: when users define quality. BMJ Qual Saf 2020; 29: 711–16. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009830.
    43.Coulter, A, Roberts, S, Dixon, A. Delivering Better Services for People with Long-Term Conditions: building the House of Care. London: The King’s Fund; 2013. www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/delivering-better-services-people-long-term-conditions (accessed 17 February 2022).
    44.Wagner, EH. Chronic disease management: what will it take to improve care for chronic illness? Eff Clin Pract 1998; 1: 2–4.
    45.Williams, O, Tembo, D, Ocloo, J, et al. COVID-19 and Co-production in Health and Social Care Research, Policy and Practice: Co-production Methods and Working Together at a Distance (vol 2). Bristol: Policy Press; 2021. https://doi.org/10.47674/9781447361794.
    46.Coulter, A. Patient engagement. What works? J Ambulatory Care Manage 2012; 35: 80–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/JAC.0b013e318249e0fd.
    47.Hibbard, J, Stockard, J, Mahoney, ER, Tusler, M. Development of the patient activation measure (PAM): conceptualizing and measuring activation in patients and consumers. Health Serv Res 2004; 39: 1005–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00269.x.
    48.Is, Shinkman R. ‘empowered dialysis’ the key to better outcomes? NEJM Catalyst; 15 March 2018. https://catalyst.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/CAT.18.0232 (accessed 17 February 2022).
    49.Foley, T, Horwitz, L. Learning health systems. In: Dixon-Woods, M, Brown, K, Marjanovic, S, et al., editors. Elements of Improving Quality and Safety in Healthcare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; forthcoming.
    50.Britto, MT, Fuller, SC, Kaplan, HC, et al. Using a network organisational architecture to support the development of learning healthcare systems. BMJ Qual Saf 2018; 27: 937–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007219.
    51.ImproveCareNow. Purpose and success; 2020. www.improvecarenow.org/purpose-success (accessed 17 February 2022).
    52.Kamal, AH, Kirkland, KB, Meier, DE, et al. A person-centered, registry-based learning health system for palliative care: a path to coproducing better outcomes, experience, value, and science. J Palliat Med 2018; 21: S-61–S-67. http://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2017.0354.
    53.Fotaki, M. Co-production under the financial crisis and austerity: a means of democratizing public services or a race to the bottom? J Manage Inquiry 2015; 24: 433–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492615579790.
    54.Levy, P. Self-dialysis in Sweden; 11 August 2011. http://runningahospital.blogspot.com/2011/08/self-dialysis-in-sweden.html (accessed 9 March 2022).
    55.Tholstrup, J. Empowering patients to need less care and do better in Highland Hospital, South Sweden. In: Loeffler, E, Power, G, Bovaird, T, Hine-Hughes, F, editors. Co-Production of Health and Wellbeing in Scotland. Edinburgh: Governance International; 2013: 90–9. www.govint.org/fileadmin/user_upload/publications/Co-Production_of_Health_and_Wellbeing_in_Scotland.pdf (accessed 17 February 2022).
    56.Clinic, Mayo. OB Nest: a new vision for prenatal care; 19 March 2021. www.mayoclinic.org/medical-professionals/obstetrics-gynecology/news/ob-nest-a-new-vision-for-prenatal-care/mac-20509442 (accessed 11 February 2022).
    57.Chamberlain, P, Mawson, S, Wolstenholme, D. Services: service design in chronic health. In: Tsekleves, E, Cooper, R, editors. Design for Health. London: Routledge; 2017: 216–40.
    58.Lab4Living. https://lab4living.org.uk (accessed 17 February 2022).
    59.Lab4Living. Head-Up: developing a novel cervical orthosis for neck weakness. https://lab4living.org.uk/projects/head-up (accessed 17 February 2022).
    60.Helix Centre. ReSPECT: personalised care, even in an emergency. https://helixcentre.com/project-respect (accessed 17 February 2022).
    61.Design Council. Reducing Violence and Aggression in A&E Through a Better Experience. London: Design Council; 2011. www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/ReducingViolenceAndAggressionInAandE.pdf (accessed 17 February 2022).
    62.Economics, Frontier. Reducing Violence and Aggression in A&E: Through a Better Experience. An Impact Evaluation for the Design Council. London: Frontier Economics; 2013. www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/AE_FE_evaluation_report.pdf (accessed 17 February 2022).
    63.Medical Research Council. Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions. London: Medical Research Council; 2006. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20220207162925/http://mrc.ukri.org/documents/pdf/complex-interventions-guidance (accessed 27 June 2022).
    64.Burns, C, Cottam, H, Vanstone, C, et al. RED Paper 02: Transformation Design. London: Design Council; 2006. www.designcouncil.org.uk/resources/report/red-paper-02-transformation-design (accessed 17 February 2022).
    65.The Point of Care Foundation. EBCD: experience-based co-design toolkit. www.pointofcarefoundation.org.uk/resource/experience-based-co-design-ebcd-toolkit (accessed 17 February 2022).
    66.Donetto, S, Pierri, P, Tsianakas, V, et al. Experience-based co-design and healthcare improvement: realising participatory design in the public sector. Design J 2015; 18: 227–48. https://doi.org/10.2752/175630615X14212498964312.
    67.Locock, L, Robert, G, Boaz, A, et al. Testing accelerated experience-based co-design: a qualitative study of using a national archive of patient experience narrative interviews to promote rapid patient-centred service improvement. Health Serv Deliv Res 2014; 2(4). https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr02040.
    68.O’Cathain, A, Croot, L, Duncan, E, et al. Guidance on how to develop complex interventions to improve health and healthcare. BMJ Open 2019; 9: e029954. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029954.
    69.Tsianakas, V, Robert, G, Richardson, A, et al. Enhancing the experience of carers in the chemotherapy outpatient setting: an exploratory randomised controlled trial to test the impact, acceptability and feasibility of a complex intervention co-designed by carers and staff. Support Care Cancer 2015; 23: 3069–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-015-2677-x.
    70.Van Deventer, C, Robert, G, Wright, A. Improving childhood nutrition and wellness in South Africa: involving mothers/caregivers of malnourished or HIV positive children and health care workers as co-designers to enhance a local quality improvement intervention. BMC Health Serv Res 2016; 16: 358. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1574-4.
    71.Mendel, P, Davis, LM, Turner, S, et al. Co-Design of Services for Health and Reentry (CO-SHARE): An Experience-Based Co-Design (EBCD) Pilot Study with Individuals Returning to Community from Jail and Service Providers in Los Angeles County. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2019. www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2844.html (accessed 17 February 2022).
    72.Green, T, Bonner, A, Teleni, L, et al. Use and reporting of experience-based codesign studies in the healthcare setting: a systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf 2020; 29: 64–76. https://doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009570.
    73.Macdonald, A. Products: negotiating design within sceptical territory: lessons from healthcare. In: Tsekleves, E, Cooper, R, editors. Design for Health. London: Routledge; 2017: 311–27.
    74.Oliver, SR, Rees, RW, Clarke‐Jones, L, et al. A multidimensional conceptual framework for analysing public involvement in health services research. Health Expect 2008; 11: 72–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00476.x.
    75.Madden, M, Speed, E. Beware zombies and unicorns: toward critical patient and public involvement in health research in a neoliberal context. Front Sociol 2017; 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2017.00007.
    76.Locock, L, Boaz, A. Drawing straight lines along blurred boundaries: qualitative research, patient and public involvement in medical research, co-production and co-design. Evid Policy: J Res Debate Pract 2019; 15: 409–21. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426419X15552999451313.
    77.Williams, O, Sarre, S, Papoulias, C, et al. Lost in the shadows: reflections on the dark side of co-production. Health Res Policy Syst 2020; 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-00558-0.
    78.McMullin, C, Needham, C. Co-production in healthcare. In: Brandsen, T, Steen, T, Verschuere, B, editors. Co-Production and Co-Creation: Engaging Citizens in Public Services. New York: Routledge; 2018: 151–60. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315204956.
    79.Ocloo, J, Garfield, S, Dean Franklin, B, Dawson, S. Exploring the theory, barriers and enablers for patient and public involvement across health, social care and patient safety: a systematic review of reviews. Health Res Policy Syst 2021; 19: 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-00644-3.
    80.Palumbo, R. Contextualizing co-production of health care: a systematic literature review. Int J Public Sect Manage 2016; 29: 72–90. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-07-2015-0125.
    81.Schlappa, H, Imani, Y. Who is in the lead? New perspectives on leading service co-production. In: Brandsen, T, Steen, T, Verschuere, B, editors. Co-Production and Co-Creation: Engaging Citizens in Public Services. New York: Routledge; 2018: 99–108.
    82.Greenhalgh, T, Jackson, C, Shaw, S, Janamian, T. Achieving research impact through co-creation in community-based health services. Milbank Q 2016; 94: 392–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12197.
    83.Steen, T, Brandsen, T, Verschuere, B. The dark side of co-creation and co-production: seven evils. In: Brandsen, T, Steen, T, Verschuere, B, editors. Co-Production and Co-Creation: Engaging Citizens in Public Services. New York: Routledge; 2018: 284–93. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315204956.
    84.Williams, BN, Kang, SC, Johnson, J. (Co)-contamination as the dark side of co-production: public value failures in co-production processes. Public Manage Rev 2016; 18: 692–717. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1111660.
    85.Cluley, V, Parker, S, Radnor, Z. New development: expanding public service value to include dis/value. Publ Money Manag 2021; 41: 656–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2020.1737392.
    86.Clarke, D, Jones, F, Harris, R, Robert, G. What outcomes are associated with developing and implementing coproduced interventions in acute healthcare settings? A rapid evidence synthesis. BMJ Open 2017; 7: e014650. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/7/e014650.
    87.Radnor, Z, Williams, S. Lean and associated techniques for process improvement. In: Dixon-Woods, M, Brown, K, Marjanovic, S, et al., editors. Elements of Improving Quality and Safety in Healthcare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; forthcoming.
    88.The Point of Care Foundation. Involving people with learning disabilities – Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust. www.pointofcarefoundation.org.uk/resource/involving-people-learning-disabilities-leicestershire-partnership-nhs-trust (accessed 17 February 2022).
    89.Prendiville, A. Service design methods: knowledge co-production in health and social care. In: Pfannstiel, MA, Rasche, C, editors. Service Design and Service Thinking in Healthcare and Hospital Management. Theory, Concepts, Practice. Switzerland: Springer; 2019: 359–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00749-2.
    90.Langley, J, Wolstenholme, D, Cooke, J. ‘Collective making’ as knowledge mobilisation: the contribution of participatory design in the co-creation of knowledge in healthcare. BMC Health Serv Res 2018; 18: 585. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3397-y.
    91.Thomson, A, Rivas, C, Giovanni, G. Multiple Sclerosis outpatient future groups: improving the quality of participant interaction and ideation tools within service improvement activities. BMC Health Serv Res 2015; 15: 105. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-0773-8.
    92.Bowen, S, McSeveny, K, Lockley, E, et al. How was it for you? Experiences of participatory design in the UK health service. CoDesign 2013; 9: 230–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2013.846384.
    93.Johansson-Sköldberg, U, Woodilla, J, Çetinkaya, M. Design thinking: past, present and possible futures. Creat Innov Manage 2013; 22: 121–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12023.
    94.Palmer, VJ, Chondros, P, Furler, J, et al. The CORE study – an adapted mental health experience codesign intervention to improve psychosocial recovery for people with severe mental illness: a stepped wedge cluster randomized-controlled trial. Health Expect 2021; 24: 1948–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13334.
    95.Iedema, R, Merrick, E, Piper, D, et al. Co-design as discursive practice in emergency health services: the architecture of deliberation. J Appl Behav Sci 2010; 46:73–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886309357544.
    96.Sjoberg, C. Voices in design: argumentation in participatory development. Licentiate Thesis (Thesis no. 436), Linkoping Studies in Science and Technology, Department of Computer and Information Science, Linkoping University, Linkoping, Sweden, 1996.
    97.Donetto, S, Cribb, A. Researching involvement in health care practices: interrupting or reproducing medicalization? J Eval Clin Pract 2011; 17: 907–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01725.x.
    98.Facer, K, Enright, B. Creating Living Knowledge: the Connected Communities Programme, Community-University Partnerships and the Participatory Turn in the Production Of Knowledge. Bristol: Arts and Humanities Research Council; 2016.
    99.Ostrom, E. Crossing the great divide: coproduction, synergy, and development. World Devel 1996; 24: 1073–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(96)00023-X.
    100.Voorberg, WH, Bekkers, VJJM, Tummers, LG. A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Manage Rev 2015; 17: 1333–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505.
    101.Loeffler, E, Bovaird, T. User and community co-production of public services: what does the evidence tell us? Int J Public Admin 2016; 48: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2016.1250559.
    102.Seid, M, Hartley, DM, Dellal, G, Myers, S, Margolis, PA. Organizing for collaboration: an actororiented architecture in ImproveCareNow. Learn Health Sys 2020; 4: e10205. https://doi.org/10.1002/lrh2.10205.
    103.Gremyr, A, Malm, U, Lundin, L, Andersson, A-C. A learning health system for people with severe mental illness: a promise for continuous learning, patient coproduction and more effective care. Digital Psyc 2019; 2: 83. https://doi.org/10.1080/2575517X.2019.1622397.
    104.Durose, C, Needham, C, Mangan, C, Generating, Ress J. ‘good enough’ evidence for co-production. Evid Policy: J Res Debate Pract 2017; 13: 135–51. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426415X14440619792955.
    105.Palmer, VJ, Weavell, W, Callander, R, et al. The participatory zeitgeist: an explanatory theoretical model of change in an era of coproduction and codesign in healthcare improvement. Medical Humanit 2019; 45: 247–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2017-011398.
    106.Bate, SP, Robert, G. Towards more user-centric organisational development: lessons from a case study of experience-based design. J Appl Behav Sci 2007; 43: 41–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886306297014.
    107.Raynor, DK, Ismail, H, Blenkinsopp, A, et al. Experience‐based co‐design – adapting the method for a researcher‐initiated study in a multi‐site setting. Health Expect 2020; 23: 562–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13028.
    108.Jones, F, Gombert-Waldron, K, Honey, S, et al. Using co-production to increase activity in acute stroke units: the CREATE mixed-methods study. Health Serv Deliv Res 2020; 8(35). https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr08350.
    109.Dixon-Woods, M, McNicol, S, Martin, G. Ten challenges in improving quality in healthcare: lessons from the Health Foundation’s programme evaluations and relevant literature. BMJ Qual Saf 2012; 21: 876–84. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000760.
    110.Robert, G, MacDonald, A. Co-design, organizational creativity and quality improvement in the healthcare sector: ‘designerly’ or ‘design-like?’. In: Sangiorgi, D, Prendiville, A, editors. Designing for Service. Contemporary Issues and Novel Spaces. London: Bloomsbury; 2017: 117–30.
    111.Mulgan, G, Breckon, J, Tarrega, M, et al. Public Value: How Can It be Measured, Managed and Grown? London: Nesta; 2019. https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/Public_Value_WEB.pdf (accessed 17 February 2022).
    112.Bovaird, T, Flemig, S, Loeffler, E, Osborne, SP. How far have we come with co-production – and what’s next? Publ Money Manag 2019; 39: 229–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2019.1592903.
    113.Co-production Network for Wales. https://copronet.wales (accessed 17 February 2022).
    114.Scottish Co-production Network. www.coproductionscotland.org.uk (accessed 17 February 2022).
    115.Q. Special Interest Group. Co-production. https://q.health.org.uk/community/groups/co-production (accessed 17 February 2022).
    116.International Coproduction Health Network (ICoHN). http://icohn.org (accessed 17 February 2022).
    117.Loeffler, E, Bovaird, T, editors. The Palgrave Handbook of Co-Production of Public Services and Outcomes. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53705-0.
    118.IDEO.org. Design kit. www.designkit.org/methods (accessed 17 February 2022).

    Metrics

    Altmetric attention score

    Full text views

    Total number of HTML views: 0
    Total number of PDF views: 0 *
    Loading metrics...

    Book summary page views

    Total views: 0 *
    Loading metrics...

    * Views captured on Cambridge Core between #date#. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

    Usage data cannot currently be displayed.

    Accessibility standard: Unknown

    Why this information is here

    This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

    Accessibility Information

    Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.