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

Health Research Policy and Systems

Research

Michelle Gagnon¹  Erica Di Ruggiero²  Sara Kreindler³  Roman Kislov⁴  Robert K. D. McLean⁵  Chris McCutcheon⁶  Ian D. Graham⁷  Leslie A. Fierro⁸  Gayle Scarrow⁹  Jessica Reszel^1,10  Rebecca Armstrong^1,11  Olivia Daub^1,12  Anita Kothari^1,13  Alison M. Hutchinson^1,14  Christine E. Cassidy^1,15  Fred Carden^1,16  Alice B. Aiken^1,17  Judy Bray^1,18 

[1] Consultant, Ottawa, Canada;Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada;Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada;George & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada;Faculty of Business and Law, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom;School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom;Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Tygerberg, South Africa;Policy and Evaluation Division, International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada;Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada;Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada;Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada;Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute & Schools of Epidemiology and Public Health & Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada;Max Bell School of Public Policy, McGill University, Montreal, Canada;Michael Smith Health Research B.C, Vancouver, Canada;Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada;School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada;Research and Evaluation Branch, National Disability Insurance Agency, Melbourne, Australia;School of Communication Sciences & Disorders, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada;School of Health Studies, Western University, London, Canada;School of Nursing and Midwifery, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety in the Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia;Barwon Health, Geelong, Australia;School of Nursing, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada;Using Evidence Inc., Ottawa, Canada;Vice-President Research and Innovation, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada;Vice-President Research, Canadian Cancer Society, Toronto, Canada;

关键词: Research co-production;    Research Quality Plus;    Research Quality Plus for Co-Production;    Integrated knowledge translation;    Community based participatory research;    Engaged scholarship;    Participatory research;    Research evaluation;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12961-023-00990-y

 received in 2022-11-09, accepted in 2023-05-05,  发布年份 2023

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundCo-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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionEvaluation 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.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© The Author(s) 2023

【 图 表 】

40517_2023_259_Article_IEq19.gif

40517_2023_259_Article_IEq2.gif

41116_2023_37_Article_IEq248.gif