BACKGROUND: Innovations in coproduction are shaping public service reform in diverse contexts around the world. Although many innovations are local, others have expanded and evolved over time. We know very little, however, about the process of implementation and evolution of coproduction. The purpose of this study was to explore the adoption, implementation and assimilation of three approaches to the coproduction of public services with structurally vulnerable groups.

METHODS: We conducted a 4 year longitudinal multiple case study (2019-2023) of three coproduced public service innovations involving vulnerable populations: ESTHER in Jönköping Region, Sweden involving people with multiple complex needs (Case 1); Making Recovery Real in Dundee, Scotland with people who have serious mental illness (Case 2); and Learning Centres in Manitoba, Canada (Case 3), also involving people with serious mental illness. Data sources included 14 interviews with strategic decision-makers and a document analysis to understand the history and contextual factors relating to each case. Three frameworks informed the case study protocol, semi-structured interview guides, data extraction, deductive coding and analysis: the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, the Diffusion of Innovation model and Lozeau's Compatibility Gaps to understand assimilation.

RESULTS: The adoption of coproduction involving structurally vulnerable populations was a notable evolution of existing improvement efforts in Cases 1 and 3, while impetus by an external change agency, existing collaborative efforts among community organizations, and the opportunity to inform a new municipal mental health policy sparked adoption in Case 2. In all cases, coproduced innovation centred around a central philosophy that valued lived experience on an equal basis with professional knowledge in coproduction processes. This philosophical orientation offered flexibility and adaptability to local contexts, thereby facilitating implementation when compared with more defined programming. According to the informants, efforts to avoid co-optation risks were successful, resulting in the assimilation of new mindsets and coproduction processes, with examples of how this had led to transformative change.

CONCLUSIONS: In exploring innovations in coproduction with structurally vulnerable groups, our findings suggest several additional considerations when applying existing theoretical frameworks. These include the philosophical nature of the innovation, the need to study the evolution of the innovation itself as it emerges over time, greater attention to partnered processes as disruptors to existing power structures and an emphasis on driving transformational change in organizational cultures.

BACKGROUND: Recent years have seen a dramatic growth in interest in the nature and extent of co-production in the health and social care sectors. Due to the intense proliferation of work on co-production, there is intense variation in practice in how co-production is defined, understood and used in practice.

METHODS: We conducted a narrative review to explore, and provide an overview of, which models of health and social care co-production have been developed, applied and critiqued over the last few decades.

RESULTS: Seventy-three peer reviewed articles met our inclusion criteria. In this set of articles, we identified three broad types of models: conceptual/theoretical; practice-oriented; and presenting a typology. We found that practice-oriented models, predominantly from the Health Services Research and Quality Improvement literature, had largely not drawn on conceptual/theoretical models from the disciplinary fields of Public Administration & Management and Sociology. In particular, they have largely neglected theoretical perspectives on relationships and power and agency in co-production work, as well as the concepts of Service-Dominant Logic and Public Service-Dominant Logic as ways to think about the joint, collaborative process of producing new value, particularly in the context of the use of a service.

CONCLUSION: Our review has identified distinct literatures which have contributed a variety of models of health and social care co-production. Our findings highlight under-explored dimensions of co-production that merit greater attention in the health and social care contexts. The overview of models of co-production we provide aims to offer a useful platform for the integration of different perspectives on co-production in future research and practice in health and social care.

Objectives: Analyse reported processes of co-design and co-production in the context of health and social care to explore the underlying mechanisms that enable inclusive and reciprocal engagement.

Search strategy: Peer review research was obtained from a prior scoping review searching eight databases consisting of all methodologies relevant to co-design or co-production in the context of health and social care services and involving service-users.

Methods of selection: Articles were included for synthesis if they reported a process of dialogue, with mutuality, insight and clarification in their engagement process. Ninety-three peer-review articles informed our programme theory development.

Analysis: Data relating to co-design and co-production processes were extracted and analysed through inductive, abductive, and deductive analysis leading to the development of an initial programme theory.

Main results: This realist synthesis finds that co-design and co-production can occur at different times, in part or all of the research and participatory process. There is an over reliance on the term ‘co-design’ or ‘co-production’ to convey complex engagement or participatory processes. We identified six mechanisms (intention, assets, dialogue, documentation, interpretation and understanding). Interaction between these six identified mechanisms in context, even if only brief, is important for supporting meaningful engagement, alignment and agreement within a co-design or co-production process.

Implications for practice: The initial programme theory presented in this article provides clarity by identifying essential mechanisms which can guide the design and implementation of a range of participatory approaches. Rather than relying on a single label to convey complex participatory methods or processes, the values and principles of co-design or co-production, in combination with this programme theory, could be applied to guide implementation and reporting of specific activities within a range of research or participatory methods.

Patient and public contribution: The initial programme theory was presented and piloted in a series of collaborative workshops between May 2023 and March 2024 with patient and public contributors, health professionals and researchers. This engagement process is currently underway to refine the programme theory and it is anticipated that this next phase will be completed in September 2024.

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.

Although Elinor Ostrom’s principles for collaborative group working could promote effective and equitable collaborative endeavours among diverse actors/stakeholders, they are largely untested in public service design and delivery. This article demonstrates how Ostrom’s principles could help to mitigate the potential for co-creating dis/value and instead support all involved to co-create systemic public value. The authors develop Ostrom’s work by proposing: an original, systemically-informed re-classification of Ostrom’s principles; that co-creation endeavours can be reconceptualized as a novel way of creating a ‘common pool resource’ and; that failure to adequately address the potential to co-create dis/value can lead to ‘tragedies of co-design’.

IMPACT

This article provides a way to promote more effective and equitable collaboration in the design and delivery of public services. Increasingly public services are designed with service users, but it is common for these provider?user endeavours to perform sub-optimally and/or to have negative outcomes. The authors offer a set of principles and a novel framework for applying them that have been designed to: firstly, mitigate the potential for sub-optimal and/or negative performance and, secondly, promote more positive processes and outcomes for provider?user collaborations. Improving provider?user collaboration in this way will ultimately lead to better design and delivery of public services.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore how the concepts of co-production and co-design have been defined and applied in the context of health and social care and to identify the temporal adoption of the terms.

METHODS: A systematic scoping review of CINAHL with Full Text, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed and Scopus was conducted to identify studies exploring co-production or co-design in health and social care. Data regarding date and conceptual definitions were extracted. From the 2933 studies retrieved, 979 articles were included in this review.

RESULTS: A network map of the sixty most common definitions and-through exploration of citations-eight definition clusters and a visual representation of how they interconnect and have informed each other over time are presented. Additional findings were as follows: (i) an increase in research exploring co-production and co-design in health and social care contexts; (ii) an increase in the number of new definitions during the last decade, despite just over a third of included articles providing no definition or explanation for their chosen concept; and (iii) an increase in the number of publications using the terms co-production or co-design while not involving citizens/patients/service users.

CONCLUSIONS: Co-production and co-design are conceptualized in a wide range of ways. Rather than seeking universal definitions of these terms, future applied research should focus on articulating the underlying principles and values that need to be translated and explored in practice.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The search strategy and pilot results were presented at a workshop in May 2019 with patient and public contributors and researchers. Discussion here informed our next steps. During the analysis phase of the review, informal discussions were held once a month with a patient who has experience in patient and public involvement. As this involvement was conducted towards the end of the review, we agreed together that inclusion as an author would risk being tokenistic. Instead, acknowledgements were preferred. The next phase involves working as equal contributors to explore the values and principles of co-production reported within the most common definitions.

Introduction: Increased interest in collaborative and inclusive approaches to healthcare improvement makes revisiting Elinor Ostrom’s ‘design principles’ for enabling collective management of common pool resources (CPR) in polycentric systems a timely endeavour.

Theory and method: Ostrom proposed a generalisable set of eight core design principles for the efficacy of groups. To consider the utility of Ostrom’s principles for the planning, delivery, and evaluation of future health(care) improvement we retrospectively apply them to a recent co-design project.

Results: Three distinct aspects of co-design were identified through consideration of the principles. These related to: (1) understanding and mapping the system (2) upholding democratic values and (3) regulating participation. Within these aspects four of Ostrom’s eight principles were inherently observed. Consideration of the remaining four principles could have enhanced the systemic impact of the co-design process.

Discussion: Reconceptualising co-design through the lens of CPR offers new insights into the successful system-wide application of such approaches for the purpose of health(care) improvement.

Conclusion: The eight design principles – and the relationships between them – form a heuristic that can support the planning, delivery, and evaluation of future healthcare improvement projects adopting co-design. They may help to address questions of how to scale up and embed such approaches as self-sustaining in wider systems.

BACKGROUND: The 'Productive Ward: Releasing Time to Care' programme is a quality improvement (QI) intervention introduced in English acute hospitals a decade ago to: (1) Increase time nurses spend in direct patient care. (2) Improve safety and reliability of care. (3) Improve experience for staff and patients. (4) Make changes to physical environments to improve efficiency.

OBJECTIVE: To explore how timing of adoption, local implementation strategies and processes of assimilation into day-to-day practice relate to one another and shape any sustained impact and wider legacies of a large-scale QI intervention.

DESIGN: Multiple methods within six hospitals including 88 interviews (with Productive Ward leads, ward staff, Patient and Public Involvement representatives and senior managers), 10 ward manager questionnaires and structured observations on 12 randomly selected wards.

RESULTS: Resource constraints and a managerial desire for standardisation meant that, over time, there was a shift away from the original vision of empowering ward staff to take ownership of Productive Ward towards a range of implementation 'short cuts'. Nonetheless, material legacies (eg, displaying metrics data; storage systems) have remained in place for up to a decade after initial implementation as have some specific practices (eg, protected mealtimes). Variations in timing of adoption, local implementation strategies and contextual changes influenced assimilation into routine practice and subsequent legacies. Productive Ward has informed wider organisational QI strategies that remain in place today and developed lasting QI capabilities among those meaningfully involved in its implementation.

CONCLUSIONS: As an ongoing QI approach Productive Ward has not been sustained but has informed contemporary organisational QI practices and strategies. Judgements about the long-term sustainability of QI interventions should consider the evolutionary and adaptive nature of change processes.

BACKGROUND: Codesign has the potential to transform health and other public services. To avoid unintentionally reinforcing existing inequities, better understanding is needed of how to facilitate involvement of vulnerable populations in acceptable, ethical and effective codesign.

OBJECTIVE: To explore citizens' involvement in codesigning public services for vulnerable groups, identify challenges and suggest improvements.

DESIGN: A modified case study approach. Pattern matching was used to compare reported challenges with a priori theoretical propositions.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A two-day international symposium involved 28 practitioners, academics and service users from seven countries to reflect on challenges and to codesign improved processes for involving vulnerable populations.

INTERVENTION STUDIED: Eight case studies working with vulnerable and disadvantaged populations in three countries.

RESULTS: We identified five shared challenges to meaningful, sustained participation of vulnerable populations: engagement; power differentials; health concerns; funding; and other economic/social circumstances. In response, a focus on relationships and flexibility is essential. We encourage codesign projects to enact a set of principles or heuristics rather than following pre-specified steps. We identify a set of principles and tactics, relating to challenges outlined in our case studies, which may help in codesigning public services with vulnerable populations.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Codesign facilitators must consider how meaningful engagement will be achieved and how power differentials will be managed when working with services for vulnerable populations. The need for flexibility and responsiveness to service user needs may challenge expectations about timelines and outcomes. User-centred evaluations of codesigned public services are needed.