Note: Page numbers followed by “f” refers to figures and “t” refers to tables.
-
- A
- academic-health service partnerships, 130, 151–153, 161, 163, 166
- barriers/facilitators and strategies, 163–165
- guiding principles for, 155t
- manage partnerships during research process, 154–159
- practice of research coproduction, 165
- sustainability of partnerships, 159–163
- academic-service organizational partnership, 296
- active listening, 261
- adaptive research strategy, 23
- ad hoc stakeholder engagement, 251
- AFIDEP. See African Institute for Policy Development (AFIDEP)
- African Academy of Sciences (AAS), 277
- African Institute for Policy Development (AFIDEP), 277
- Applied Research Collaborations (ARCs), 299
- appraisal, 226
- assess resources, 201–202
- attitude-based capabilities, 243t
- attitude-related competencies, 242–243
- audience(s), identify and learn about your, 202
- Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, 278
-
- B
- Better Services by Design (BSBD), 81–83
- boundary-spanning skills, 78t
- BSBD. See Better Services by Design (BSBD)
- budget constraints, 164
-
- C
- Canadian Academy of Health Sciences’ (CAHS) Preferred Framework on Investment, 213
- Canadian Coalition for Global Health Research (CCGHR) Principles for Global Health Research, 42
- Canadian Health Services and Policy Research Alliance (CHSPRA), 260
- Canadian health system-academic training program, 253
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), 5, 6, 172, 176t–178t, 262, 284
- advice on knowledge user, 189–190
- knowledge translation guide, 198
- capability for research coproduction, 297–298
- capacity-building and infrastructure, 233
- developing research coproduction competencies, 244–245
- European Implementation Science Education Network (EISEN), 238–243
- guiding frameworks, 234–238
- capacity within organization, 146
- CBPR. See community-based participatory research (CBPR)
- central coproduction problem, 36–40
- CHSPRA. See Canadian Health Services and Policy Research Alliance (CHSPRA)
- CIHR. See Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
- civil society movements, 42
- CLAHRCs. See Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs)
- Closing the Gap in a Generation, 40
- Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs), 56, 75, 77–83, 86, 161
- community-based participatory research (CBPR), 18, 19
- conceptual clarity and model building, 18–19
- Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, 237
- consumerism movement, 2
- coproduced dissemination, 192–194
- compatibility of, 195
- guidance on dissemination planning, 196–197
- judicious knowledge translation, 197–198
- knowledge exchange, 196
- planning, steps of, 200–204
- planning at grant proposal stage, 198–199
- from research to dissemination, 199–200
- coproduction, capacities for, 222
- coproduction grant proposal writing advice, 173–179
- coproduction limitations, 214
- coproduction partnership with industry, 88
- coproduction proposals, 282
- coproduction research, 211
- field test, 226–229
- proposal checklist, 190–191
- research evaluation landscape, 212–217
- roadmap, 212
- RQ+ and RQ+ 4 CO-PRO, 217–226
- team and stakeholders, 4f
- coproduction research grant proposal
- coproduction grant proposal writing advice, 173–179
- general advice on writing, 171–173
- tips on writing, 179–180
- coproduction scholarship, 106t
- coproduction teams, 47
- cost-benefit analysis, 164
- cross organizational boundaries, 76
- cultural diversity, 67
- Culture of Health, 279
-
- D
- decision-making activities, 140
- decision-making process, 252, 261
- Declaration On Research Assessment (DORA), 296
- deliberative paradigm, 214
- Delphi technique, 80
- democratization, 11
- developmental evaluation, 146
- dissemination
- planning, 193, 194, 196–197, 204, 205
- strategies, 203–204
- diverse terminology, 93
- Doncaster-based project team, 84
- Doncaster coproduction in local government, 81–84
- Doncaster Public Health team, 81
- DORA. See Declaration On Research Assessment (DORA)
- Double Diamond design process, 82–84
-
- E
- E4A. See Evidence for Action (E4A)
- effective collaborative relationship, 146
- effective partnerships, 67
- developing and sustaining, 108t
- effective research partnerships, 129–131
- developing, 142–146
- expectations of research partnership, 132–141
- planning for implementation and evaluation, 146
- EISEN. See European Implementation Science Education Network (EISEN)
- emotional labor, 96
- EnComPaSS. See Enhanced Community Palliative Support Service (EnComPaSS)
- engaged scholarship, 7
- engagement, 256–257
- Enhanced Community Palliative Support Service (EnComPaSS), 85
- enhanced conceptual clarity, 19
- environmental research field, 274
- essential ingredients, 293–295
- European Implementation Science Education Network (EISEN), 238–243
- attitude-related competencies, 242–243
- knowledge-related competencies, 239
- skills-related competencies, 240–242
- evidence assessment, 200
- evidence-based approaches, 237
- Evidence for Action (E4A), 279
- evidence-informed practices, 42
- evidence leaders in Africa, 277
- Experience Based Co-Design, 122
- experiential knowledge, 98–105
- of managing partnership, 156–159
- systems transformation, coproduction for, 44–45
- transform networks/communities, coproduction for, 44
- transform organizations, coproduction to, 43–44
- experiential learning opportunity, 254
-
- F
- face-to-face communication, 163
- feedback loop, 27
- field test, 226–229
- framework fluidity, 219–220
- funders, role of, 271
- in coproduction, 281
- and coproduction in the literature, 274–275
- examples of funders’ activities, 275–280
- in use of evidence, 272–273
-
- G
- genuine engagement in coproduction, 40
- global science systems, 213
- government-based funding, 96
- grand theory of research coproduction, 18
- grounded theory process/research, 17, 23
-
- H
- Habits of Mind, 238
- health care organizations, 132, 133, 252
- health equity, 37
- health inequities, 37, 40
- health research designs, 237
- health research training programs, 266
- health services, 163
- doctoral training, 262
- and policy research partnership, 131
- health system/academic interface, 143–144
- health system management, 131
- health system partner, 133
- helicopter research, 15
- hidden knowledge, 239
-
- I
- IDRC. See International Development Research Centre (IDRC)
- iKT. See integrated knowledge translation (iKT)
- IKTRN. See Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network (IKTRN)
- IMCHA initiative. See Innovating for Maternal and Child Health in Africa (IMCHA) initiative
- implementation theory with research coproduction practice, 22–27
- inclusive and flexible approach, 292–293
- individual-level factors, 66–67
- Innovating for Maternal and Child Health in Africa (IMCHA) initiative, 276, 277
- institutional power, 124–125
- integrated knowledge translation (iKT), 5, 6, 93, 171
- project proposal worksheet, 176t–178t
- Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network (IKTRN), 205, 226, 228
- intellectual property (IP) issues, 87
- interactive activities, 196
- International Development Research Centre (IDRC), 211, 276–277
- intersectionality, 224–225
- INVOLVE, 2, 280
- IP issues. See intellectual property (IP) issues
-
- J
- judicious coproduction, 299–300
- judicious knowledge translation, 197–198
-
- K
- key messages, developing, 203
- knowledge-based capabilities, 240t
- knowledge coproduction, 245
- knowledge exchange, 194, 196
- knowledge gap, 234
- knowledge-generating activities, 133, 134, 139
- knowledge generation, 154
- Knowledge Holders, 45
- knowledge-related competencies, 239
- knowledge transfer strategies, 2
- knowledge translation (KT), 154
- activities, 196
- approaches, 282
- frameworks, 196
- strategies, 5, 193, 251
- knowledge user-academic partnership, 267
- knowledge user-identified problems, 5
- knowledge users, 1, 3, 5, 64, 74, 76, 86, 183–186, 199, 203, 204, 225, 251, 252, 255–258, 290
- coproduction journey, 75
- digital technology to transform end of life care, 84–87
- Doncaster coproduction in local government, 81–84
- engagement, 178
- environment, 221
- involvement, 197t
- needs, 259
- nurturing productive relationships, 79–80
- priority-setting, 80
- relationships, 257
- research program level, 77–78
- structure, flexible resources, and engagement processes, 79
- KT. See knowledge translation (KT)
-
- L
- Lambert tool kit, 87
- leadership skills and attitudes, 242
- learning by doing opportunities, 78
- learning stage, 260–262, 266
- Lego® Serious Play® (LSP), 114, 115
- local knowledge, possession of, 238
-
- M
- meaningful participation, 17
- memoranda of understanding (MoUs), 79, 87
- methodological integrity, 223–224
- microethnography, 107
- MND. See Motor Neurone Disease (MND)
- Mode 1 research, 7
- Mode 2 research, 7
- Mode 3 research, 7
- mode of engagement, 23
- Motor Neurone Disease (MND), 124
- MoUs. See memoranda of understanding (MoUs)
- mutually beneficial partnership, 224
-
- N
- National Collaborating Centre for Determinants of Health, 43
- National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), 278
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), 2, 75, 279–280
- negative consequences, 225
- negative relationship effects, 63
- negotiation skills, 241
- networks of participatory action, 26
- NHMRC. See National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)
- NIHR. See National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)
- non-health sector policy makers, 76
- non-linear research process, 275
- non-traditional method, 114
- Normalization Process Theory (NPT), 22–26
-
- O
- one-size-fits-all/one size will not fit all model, 132, 292
- openness and actionability, 226
- Open Science Framework (OSF), 57
- organizational current position, 137t–139t
- organizational decision-making, 141
- organizational leadership, 139
- organizational readiness, assessing, 139–140
- organizational research
- engagement, 132
- structure, 141
- organization-to-organization relationships, 133
- OSF. See Open Science Framework (OSF)
-
- P
- Pan American Health Organization, 40
- participatory evaluations, 27
- participatory implementation research, 21–22
- Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) research, 20, 21t, 23–25, 27
- partnership structure and function, 255–256
- Pathway Model, 87f
- Patient-Centred Outcomes Research Initiative (PCORI), 2, 92, 200, 284
- patient-oriented tools and resources, 102
- PLA research. See Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) research
- political economy frameworks, 42
- political environment, 221
- positionality, 37
- Positioning for Use, 225
- positive ripple effects, 25
- power-privileged people, 38
- praxis and reflexivity, 38
- principles-based approach, 291–292, 298
- process factors, 67–68
- proposal writing, 181–183
- knowledge users during and after proposal writing, 183–186
- protocol, 223
- Public Co-Applicants in Research: Guidance on Roles and Responsibilities, 175
- Public Health team, 81
-
- Q
- QI. See quality improvement (QI)
- quality dimensions and sub-dimensions, 222–223
- quality improvement (QI), 133
-
- R
- RDF. See Researcher Development Framework (RDF)
- reciprocal communication, 99
- reciprocity, 120–121
- relational magic ingredients, 26
- relationship factors, 67
- relevance, 225
- relevant and useful research findings, 254–255
- research and evaluative thinking, 134
- research competence, 235
- research coproduction
- barriers and facilitators to, 65–68, 96–97
- competencies for, 235
- effects on communities, 64–65
- effects on individuals, 63–64
- effects on policies and systems, 65
- effects on practices or programs, 64
- effects on relationships, 63
- effects on research results or outputs, 64
- implications for the practice of, 69
- limitations and evidence gaps, 70
- outcomes, impacts, facilitators, and barriers to, 68
- patient, 93–94
- potential benefits and impacts of, 95–96
- research process, 57
- theorizing about, 18–21
- research coproduction ecosystem, 295
- research coproduction evaluation, 214
- research coproduction project, 112–113
- expectations of health services research, 125–126
- five principles of coproduction and resources, 116–122
- method, 114–116
- in real world, 122–125
- research coproduction skill development, 260f
- research ecosystems, 284
- research engagement framework, 178
- research environment, 221–222
- Researcher Development Framework (RDF), 236
- researcher-driven grants, 6
- researcher-driven project, 6
- researcher-driven research, 5, 194
- researcher–knowledge user partnerships, 174
- research evaluation landscape, 212–217
- research-funder-required research-partnerships, 275
- research funders, 284
- research impact assessment (RIA), 213, 214–215
- research legitimacy, 224–225
- research partnership
- effective communication of organization’s goals for, 141
- research production, 132
- research quality, 218–219
- Research Quality Plus (RQ+) approach, 211, 217–226
- Research Quality Plus for Coproduction (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro) Framework, 215–217, 226, 227–228
- research-related activities, 143
- research stage, research coproduction by, 102–105, 102t
- research training programs, 9, 244, 246
- resource allocation, 76
- RESTORE project, 22, 24–27
- RIA. See research impact assessment (RIA)
- ritual theory, 20
- Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), 279
- RWJF. See Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF)
-
- S
- scientific rigor, 223–224
- shared governance structures, 68
- SHEL. See Systems Health Equity Lens (SHEL)
- short- or medium-term effects, 55
- skills-based capabilities, 241t
- skills-related competencies, 240–242
- social and structural determinants of health (SSDH), 35, 40–42
- Social Impact Framework, 162
- solution-focussed approach, 298
- spaces for participation, 20
- SPOR. See Strategy for Patient Oriented Research (SPOR)
- SSDH. See social and structural determinants of health (SSDH)
- stakeholders, 292–293
- ad hoc stakeholder engagement, 251
- coproduction research team and, 4f
- engagement, 236, 276–277
- in planning, 140
- working with, 236–237
- stick of rock principle, 123
- Strategy for Patient Oriented Research (SPOR), 2, 92, 96
- system architecture, 295–297
- systematic inequalities in health, 37
- system-level factors, 68
- systems capabilities for research coproduction, 299
- Systems Health Equity Lens (SHEL), 42
- systems-level activities to enable coproduction, 283–284
- systems transformation, coproduction for, 44–45
-
- T
- TaCT. See telehealth and care technology (TaCT)
- taken for granted assumptions, 19
- team structure and decision-making, 257–258
- telehealth and care technology (TaCT), 84, 85
- theoretical knowledge, 18
- theory and theorizing, 17–18
- time and resources, 258–259
- trainees and research coproduction, 250
- barriers and challenges, 252
- barriers and facilitators, 257–259
- development of research coproduction skills, 259–262
- empirical knowledge base on research coproduction, 266–267
- expectations vs. reality, 255–257
- facilitators, 252
- impact/outcome of partnerships, 252–253
- implications and recommendations from literature, 253
- practice of research coproduction, 262–265
- research coproduction approach, 251–252
- rewards and benefits, 254–255
- training preparation for research coproduction, 266
- types of knowledge users and research context, 251
- training programs, 262
- transferable skills, 235–236
- transformational learning, 21
- transformative coproduction practice, 36, 44, 47–48
- transformative research coproduction, 38, 41, 44, 46, 48, 49
- transform networks/communities, coproduction for, 44
- transform organizations, coproduction to, 43–44
- two-community problem, 2
-
- U
- UK health system, 23
- unpredictability, 257
- US Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology, 274
- User Centre Design Theme, 81
- user engagement, 225
- US National Estuarine Research Reserve System, 274
-
- V
- values-driven approach, 291, 293
-
- W
- World Health Organization, 40, 42, 81
-
- X
- xac/qanaǂ ʔitkiniǂ project, 44–45