Cargando…

Evaluating the quality of research co-production: Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ + 4 Co-Pro)

BACKGROUND: Co-production is an umbrella term used to describe the process of generating knowledge through partnerships between researchers and those who will use or benefit from research. Multiple advantages of research co-production have been hypothesized, and in some cases documented, in both the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McLean, Robert K. D., Carden, Fred, Aiken, Alice B., Armstrong, Rebecca, Bray, Judy, Cassidy, Christine E., Daub, Olivia, Di Ruggiero, Erica, Fierro, Leslie A., Gagnon, Michelle, Hutchinson, Alison M., Kislov, Roman, Kothari, Anita, Kreindler, Sara, McCutcheon, Chris, Reszel, Jessica, Scarrow, Gayle, Graham, Ian D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10262138/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37312190
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-00990-y
_version_ 1785058009612812288
author McLean, Robert K. D.
Carden, Fred
Aiken, Alice B.
Armstrong, Rebecca
Bray, Judy
Cassidy, Christine E.
Daub, Olivia
Di Ruggiero, Erica
Fierro, Leslie A.
Gagnon, Michelle
Hutchinson, Alison M.
Kislov, Roman
Kothari, Anita
Kreindler, Sara
McCutcheon, Chris
Reszel, Jessica
Scarrow, Gayle
Graham, Ian D.
author_facet McLean, Robert K. D.
Carden, Fred
Aiken, Alice B.
Armstrong, Rebecca
Bray, Judy
Cassidy, Christine E.
Daub, Olivia
Di Ruggiero, Erica
Fierro, Leslie A.
Gagnon, Michelle
Hutchinson, Alison M.
Kislov, Roman
Kothari, Anita
Kreindler, Sara
McCutcheon, Chris
Reszel, Jessica
Scarrow, Gayle
Graham, Ian D.
author_sort McLean, Robert K. D.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Co-production is an umbrella term used to describe the process of generating knowledge through partnerships between researchers and those who will use or benefit from research. Multiple advantages of research co-production have been hypothesized, and in some cases documented, in both the academic and practice record. However, there are significant gaps in understanding how to evaluate the quality of co-production. This gap in rigorous evaluation undermines the potential of both co-production and co-producers. METHODS: This research tests the relevance and utility of a novel evaluation framework: Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ + 4 Co-Pro). Following a co-production approach ourselves, our team collaborated to develop study objectives, questions, analysis, and results sharing strategies. We used a dyadic field-test design to execute RQ + 4 Co-Pro evaluations amongst 18 independently recruited subject matter experts. We used standardized reporting templates and qualitative interviews to collect data from field-test participants, and thematic assessment and deliberative dialogue for analysis. Main limitations include that field-test participation included only health research projects and health researchers and this will limit perspective included in the study, and, that our own co-production team does not include all potential perspectives that may add value to this work. RESULTS: The field test surfaced strong support for the relevance and utility of RQ + 4 Co-Pro as an evaluation approach and framework. Research participants shared opportunities for fine-tuning language and criteria within the prototype version, but also, for alternative uses and users of RQ + 4 Co-Pro. All research participants suggested RQ + 4 Co-Pro offered an opportunity for improving how co-production is evaluated and advanced. This facilitated our revision and publication herein of a field-tested RQ + 4 Co-Pro Framework and Assessment Instrument. CONCLUSION: Evaluation is necessary for understanding and improving co-production, and, for ensuring co-production delivers on its promise of better health.. RQ + 4 Co-Pro provides a practical evaluation approach and framework that we invite co-producers and stewards of co-production—including the funders, publishers, and universities who increasingly encourage socially relevant research—to study, adapt, and apply. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-023-00990-y.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10262138
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102621382023-06-14 Evaluating the quality of research co-production: Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ + 4 Co-Pro) McLean, Robert K. D. Carden, Fred Aiken, Alice B. Armstrong, Rebecca Bray, Judy Cassidy, Christine E. Daub, Olivia Di Ruggiero, Erica Fierro, Leslie A. Gagnon, Michelle Hutchinson, Alison M. Kislov, Roman Kothari, Anita Kreindler, Sara McCutcheon, Chris Reszel, Jessica Scarrow, Gayle Graham, Ian D. Health Res Policy Syst Research BACKGROUND: Co-production is an umbrella term used to describe the process of generating knowledge through partnerships between researchers and those who will use or benefit from research. Multiple advantages of research co-production have been hypothesized, and in some cases documented, in both the academic and practice record. However, there are significant gaps in understanding how to evaluate the quality of co-production. This gap in rigorous evaluation undermines the potential of both co-production and co-producers. METHODS: This research tests the relevance and utility of a novel evaluation framework: Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ + 4 Co-Pro). Following a co-production approach ourselves, our team collaborated to develop study objectives, questions, analysis, and results sharing strategies. We used a dyadic field-test design to execute RQ + 4 Co-Pro evaluations amongst 18 independently recruited subject matter experts. We used standardized reporting templates and qualitative interviews to collect data from field-test participants, and thematic assessment and deliberative dialogue for analysis. Main limitations include that field-test participation included only health research projects and health researchers and this will limit perspective included in the study, and, that our own co-production team does not include all potential perspectives that may add value to this work. RESULTS: The field test surfaced strong support for the relevance and utility of RQ + 4 Co-Pro as an evaluation approach and framework. Research participants shared opportunities for fine-tuning language and criteria within the prototype version, but also, for alternative uses and users of RQ + 4 Co-Pro. All research participants suggested RQ + 4 Co-Pro offered an opportunity for improving how co-production is evaluated and advanced. This facilitated our revision and publication herein of a field-tested RQ + 4 Co-Pro Framework and Assessment Instrument. CONCLUSION: Evaluation is necessary for understanding and improving co-production, and, for ensuring co-production delivers on its promise of better health.. RQ + 4 Co-Pro provides a practical evaluation approach and framework that we invite co-producers and stewards of co-production—including the funders, publishers, and universities who increasingly encourage socially relevant research—to study, adapt, and apply. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-023-00990-y. BioMed Central 2023-06-13 /pmc/articles/PMC10262138/ /pubmed/37312190 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-00990-y Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
McLean, Robert K. D.
Carden, Fred
Aiken, Alice B.
Armstrong, Rebecca
Bray, Judy
Cassidy, Christine E.
Daub, Olivia
Di Ruggiero, Erica
Fierro, Leslie A.
Gagnon, Michelle
Hutchinson, Alison M.
Kislov, Roman
Kothari, Anita
Kreindler, Sara
McCutcheon, Chris
Reszel, Jessica
Scarrow, Gayle
Graham, Ian D.
Evaluating the quality of research co-production: Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ + 4 Co-Pro)
title Evaluating the quality of research co-production: Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ + 4 Co-Pro)
title_full Evaluating the quality of research co-production: Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ + 4 Co-Pro)
title_fullStr Evaluating the quality of research co-production: Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ + 4 Co-Pro)
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating the quality of research co-production: Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ + 4 Co-Pro)
title_short Evaluating the quality of research co-production: Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ + 4 Co-Pro)
title_sort evaluating the quality of research co-production: research quality plus for co-production (rq + 4 co-pro)
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10262138/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37312190
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-00990-y
work_keys_str_mv AT mcleanrobertkd evaluatingthequalityofresearchcoproductionresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4copro
AT cardenfred evaluatingthequalityofresearchcoproductionresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4copro
AT aikenaliceb evaluatingthequalityofresearchcoproductionresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4copro
AT armstrongrebecca evaluatingthequalityofresearchcoproductionresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4copro
AT brayjudy evaluatingthequalityofresearchcoproductionresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4copro
AT cassidychristinee evaluatingthequalityofresearchcoproductionresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4copro
AT daubolivia evaluatingthequalityofresearchcoproductionresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4copro
AT diruggieroerica evaluatingthequalityofresearchcoproductionresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4copro
AT fierrolesliea evaluatingthequalityofresearchcoproductionresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4copro
AT gagnonmichelle evaluatingthequalityofresearchcoproductionresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4copro
AT hutchinsonalisonm evaluatingthequalityofresearchcoproductionresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4copro
AT kislovroman evaluatingthequalityofresearchcoproductionresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4copro
AT kotharianita evaluatingthequalityofresearchcoproductionresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4copro
AT kreindlersara evaluatingthequalityofresearchcoproductionresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4copro
AT mccutcheonchris evaluatingthequalityofresearchcoproductionresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4copro
AT reszeljessica evaluatingthequalityofresearchcoproductionresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4copro
AT scarrowgayle evaluatingthequalityofresearchcoproductionresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4copro
AT grahamiand evaluatingthequalityofresearchcoproductionresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4copro