Cargando…

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

BACKGROUND: Research co-production is an umbrella term used to describe research users and researchers working together to generate knowledge. Research co-production is used to create knowledge that is relevant to current challenges and to increase uptake of that knowledge into practice, programs, p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McLean, Robert K. D., Carden, Fred, Graham, Ian D., 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
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8919555/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35287758
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43058-022-00265-7
_version_ 1784668957568925696
author McLean, Robert K. D.
Carden, Fred
Graham, Ian D.
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
author_facet McLean, Robert K. D.
Carden, Fred
Graham, Ian D.
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
author_sort McLean, Robert K. D.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Research co-production is an umbrella term used to describe research users and researchers working together to generate knowledge. Research co-production is used to create knowledge that is relevant to current challenges and to increase uptake of that knowledge into practice, programs, products, and/or policy. Yet, rigorous theories and methods to assess the quality of co-production are limited. Here we describe a framework for assessing the quality of research co-production—Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro)—and outline our field test of this approach. METHODS: Using a co-production approach, we aim to field test the relevance and utility of the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework. To do so, we will recruit participants who have led research co-production projects from the international Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network. We aim to sample 16 to 20 co-production project leads, assign these participants to dyadic groups (8 to 10 dyads), train each participant in the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework using deliberative workshops and oversee a simulation assessment exercise using RQ+ 4 Co-Pro within dyadic groups. To study this experience, we use a qualitative design to collect participant demographic information and project demographic information and will use in-depth semi-structured interviews to collect data related to the experience each participant has using the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework. DISCUSSION: This study will yield knowledge about a new way to assess research co-production. Specifically, it will address the relevance and utility of using RQ+ 4 Co-Pro, a framework that includes context as an inseparable component of research, identifies dimensions of quality matched to the aims of co-production, and applies a systematic and transferable evaluative method for reaching conclusions. This is a needed area of innovation for research co-production to reach its full potential. The findings may benefit co-producers interested in understanding the quality of their work, but also other stewards of research co-production. Accordingly, we undertake this study as a co-production team representing multiple perspectives from across the research enterprise, such as funders, journal editors, university administrators, and government and health organization leaders. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-022-00265-7.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8919555
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89195552022-03-16 Evaluating research co-production: protocol for the Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro) framework McLean, Robert K. D. Carden, Fred Graham, Ian D. 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 Implement Sci Commun Study Protocol BACKGROUND: Research co-production is an umbrella term used to describe research users and researchers working together to generate knowledge. Research co-production is used to create knowledge that is relevant to current challenges and to increase uptake of that knowledge into practice, programs, products, and/or policy. Yet, rigorous theories and methods to assess the quality of co-production are limited. Here we describe a framework for assessing the quality of research co-production—Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro)—and outline our field test of this approach. METHODS: Using a co-production approach, we aim to field test the relevance and utility of the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework. To do so, we will recruit participants who have led research co-production projects from the international Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network. We aim to sample 16 to 20 co-production project leads, assign these participants to dyadic groups (8 to 10 dyads), train each participant in the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework using deliberative workshops and oversee a simulation assessment exercise using RQ+ 4 Co-Pro within dyadic groups. To study this experience, we use a qualitative design to collect participant demographic information and project demographic information and will use in-depth semi-structured interviews to collect data related to the experience each participant has using the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework. DISCUSSION: This study will yield knowledge about a new way to assess research co-production. Specifically, it will address the relevance and utility of using RQ+ 4 Co-Pro, a framework that includes context as an inseparable component of research, identifies dimensions of quality matched to the aims of co-production, and applies a systematic and transferable evaluative method for reaching conclusions. This is a needed area of innovation for research co-production to reach its full potential. The findings may benefit co-producers interested in understanding the quality of their work, but also other stewards of research co-production. Accordingly, we undertake this study as a co-production team representing multiple perspectives from across the research enterprise, such as funders, journal editors, university administrators, and government and health organization leaders. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-022-00265-7. BioMed Central 2022-03-14 /pmc/articles/PMC8919555/ /pubmed/35287758 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43058-022-00265-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis 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 Study Protocol
McLean, Robert K. D.
Carden, Fred
Graham, Ian D.
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
Evaluating research co-production: protocol for the Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro) framework
title Evaluating research co-production: protocol for the Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro) framework
title_full Evaluating research co-production: protocol for the Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro) framework
title_fullStr Evaluating research co-production: protocol for the Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro) framework
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating research co-production: protocol for the Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro) framework
title_short Evaluating research co-production: protocol for the Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro) framework
title_sort evaluating research co-production: protocol for the research quality plus for co-production (rq+ 4 co-pro) framework
topic Study Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8919555/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35287758
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43058-022-00265-7
work_keys_str_mv AT mcleanrobertkd evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework
AT cardenfred evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework
AT grahamiand evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework
AT aikenaliceb evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework
AT armstrongrebecca evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework
AT brayjudy evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework
AT cassidychristinee evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework
AT daubolivia evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework
AT diruggieroerica evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework
AT fierrolesliea evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework
AT gagnonmichelle evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework
AT hutchinsonalisonm evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework
AT kislovroman evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework
AT kotharianita evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework
AT kreindlersara evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework
AT mccutcheonchris evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework
AT reszeljessica evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework
AT scarrowgayle evaluatingresearchcoproductionprotocolfortheresearchqualityplusforcoproductionrq4coproframework