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

Health Research Policy and Systems

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2020, Pages

  Slattery, Peter ^a   Saeri, Alexander K ^a   Bragge, Peter ^a  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

community academic partnership; participatory research; patient and public involvement; Research co design; research engagement

Indexed keywords

DATA EXTRACTION; EXPECTATION; GREY LITERATURE; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; NOMENCLATURE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH; PHYSICIAN; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; SKILL; THEORETICAL STUDY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PUBLIC RELATIONS;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; COMMUNITY-BASED PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH; HUMANS; INTERINSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85079334895     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14784505     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12961-020-0528-9     Document Type: Review

References (57)

1. Glasziou P, Chalmers I (2016) Paul Glasziou and Iain Chalmers: Is 85% of health research really "wasted"? The BMJ Opinion. https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2016/01/14/paul-glasziou-and-iain-chalmers-is-85-of-health-research-really-wasted/. Accessed 31 Jan 2020.
2. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of evidence. Lancet. 2009;374:86-9.
3. Ioannidis JPA. Why most clinical research is not useful. PLoS Med. 2016;13:e1002049.
4. Oliver S, Gray J. A bibliography of research reports about patients', clinicians' and researchers' priorities for new research. London: James Lind Alliance; 2006.
5. Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:89.
6. Lee DJ, Avulova S, Conwill R, Barocas DA. Patient engagement in the design and execution of urologic oncology research. Urol Oncol. 2017;35:552-8.
7. 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.
8. 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;17:637-50.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Haijes HA, van Thiel GJMW. Participatory methods in pediatric participatory research: a systematic review. Pediatr Res. 2016;79:676-83.
12. 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. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14121476.
13. 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.
14. 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;66:666-74.
15. 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.
16. Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, Grimshaw J, Moher D. Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev. 2012;1:10.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. PCORI. https://www.pcori.org/. Accessed 31 Jan 2020.
20. 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.
21. 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;68:574-83.
22. Veritas health innovation covidence systematic review software. Melbourne. https://www.covidence.org/home. Accessed 31 Jan 2020.
23. 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;102:105-16.
24. 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;37:1390-400.
25. Esmail L, Moore E, Rein A. Evaluating patient and stakeholder engagement in research: moving from theory to practice. J Comp Eff Res. 2015;4:133-45.
26. 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.
27. 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;45-46:271-83.
28. 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.
29. 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;11:1703-12.
30. 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;1:409-20.
31. 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;41:505-14.
32. 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;31:669-86.
33. Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Seers K, Herron-Marx S, Bayliss H (2010) The PIRICOM Study: a systematic review of the conceptualisation, measurement, impact and outcomes of patients and public involvement in health and social care research. http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/47235/. Accessed 31 Jan 2020.
34. Fudge N, Wolfe CDA, McKevitt C. Involving older people in health research. Age Ageing. 2007;36:492-500.
35. 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;8:391-6.
36. 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.
37. 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.
38. INVOLVE. Guidance on co-producing a research project. Southampton: INVOLVE; 2018.
39. Campbell HJ, Vanderhoven D. Knowledge that matters: realising the potential of co-production. Report. Manchester: N8 Research Partnership; 2016.
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. INVOLVE. Co-production in action: number one. Southampton: INVOLVE; 2019.
44. 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;17:1333-57.
45. 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;18:639-53.
46. 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.
47. 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;27:391-9.
48. 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.
49. Astbury B, Leeuw FL. Unpacking black boxes: mechanisms and theory building in evaluation. Am J Eval. 2010;31:363-81.
50. Mark MM, Henry GT. The mechanisms and outcomes of evaluation influence. Evaluation. 2004;10:35-57.
51. 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.
52. Midgley G. Systems thinking. London: Sage; 2003.
53. Fogg BJ (2009) A behavior model for persuasive design. In: Proceedings of the Persuasive Technology, Fourth International Conference, PERSUASIVE. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1541948.1541999.
54. 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.
55. Algate F, Gallagher R, Nguyen S, Ruda S, Sanders M (2014) EAST: four simple ways to apply behavioural insights. https://www.bi.team/publications/east-four-simple-ways-to-apply-behavioural-insights/. Accessed 31 Jan 2020.
56. 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;24:133-9.
57. 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.