Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Measurement and outcomes of co-production in health and social care: A systematic review of empirical studies
Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, HHJ, Department for Quality Improvement and Leadership. Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, The Jönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2480-1641
Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, The Jönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare. Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, HHJ, Department for Quality Improvement and Leadership.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8952-8773
Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, The Jönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare. Division of Methodologies, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8781-6675
Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, HHJ, Department for Quality Improvement and Leadership. Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, The Jönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4364-9814
Show others and affiliations
2023 (English)In: BMJ Open, E-ISSN 2044-6055, Vol. 13, no 9, article id e073808Article, review/survey (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, 2023. Vol. 13, no 9, article id e073808
Keywords [en]
patient participation, quality in health care, systematic review, Empirical Research, Humans, Knowledge, Learning, MEDLINE, Social Support, article, Cinahl, Cochrane Library, controlled clinical trial (topic), empiricism, human, maturity, outcome assessment, practice guideline, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, PsycINFO, public sector, Scopus, social care, theoretical study
National Category
Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-62624DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-073808ISI: 001072843300045PubMedID: 37739472Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85172425579Local ID: GOA;;908642OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hj-62624DiVA, id: diva2:1803660
Funder
Forte, Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, 2018-01431Available from: 2023-10-10 Created: 2023-10-10 Last updated: 2023-11-06Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records

Nordin, AnnikaKjellström, SofiaRobert, GlennMasterson, DanielAreskoug Josefsson, Kristina

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Nordin, AnnikaKjellström, SofiaRobert, GlennMasterson, DanielAreskoug Josefsson, Kristina
By organisation
HHJ, Department for Quality Improvement and LeadershipThe Jönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare
In the same journal
BMJ Open
Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 55 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf