The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?
The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12961-019-0432-3
复制
发表时间：
2019-03-28
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Mays, Nicholas
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Oliver, Kathryn;Kothari, Anita;Mays, Nicholas
背景：联合生产是一种将利益相关者纳入研究过程的合作研究模式，已被广泛倡导为促进研究使用和影响的一种手段。我们总结了支持联合生产的论点，建立联合生产的不同方法及其成本，并就何时以及如何考虑联合生产提供了一些建议。Debate：尽管联合生产的原因和激励因素多种多样，但对于什么是联合生产，我们为什么要这样做，我们试图达到什么效果，或者实现政策、实践或人口健康变化的最佳联合生产技术，几乎没有达成共识。此外，联合生产并不是没有风险或成本的。在共同制作的研究过程中，所涉及的不同利益之间可能会出现紧张。我们确定了与影响研究本身、研究过程、研究人员和利益相关者的专业风险、研究人员和利益相关者的个人风险以及更广泛的学术事业的风险相关的五种类型的成本。然而，这些成本在文献中很少被提及，文献通常要求利益相关者更多地参与研究过程，只关注潜在的积极因素。几乎没有工具可以帮助研究人员避免或减轻他们自己和他们的利益相关者面临的风险。结论：首先，我们建议确定共同生产的具体动机，并确切地澄清任何特定研究需要哪些结果。第二，我们建议选择专门为实现这些成果而设计的战略，并对其进行适当评估。最后，在缺乏关于联合制作的影响和过程的有力证据的情况下，我们建议对联合制作采取谨慎的方法。这将涉及有意识和反思的研究实践，评估共同生产的研究实践如何改变结果，以及探索共同生产的成本和收益。我们提出了一些初步建议，以帮助确定联合制作何时可能更有用或更不有用。
Background: Coproduction, a collaborative model of research that includes stakeholders in the research process, has been widely advocated as a means of facilitating research use and impact. We summarise the arguments in favour of coproduction, the different approaches to establishing coproductive work and their costs, and offer some advice as to when and how to consider coproduction.Debate: Despite the multiplicity of reasons and incentives to coproduce, there is little consensus about what coproduction is, why we do it, what effects we are trying to achieve, or the best coproduction techniques to achieve policy, practice or population health change. Furthermore, coproduction is not free risk or cost. Tensions can arise throughout coproduced research processes between the different interests involved. We identify five types of costs associated with coproduced research affecting the research itself, the research process, professional risks for researchers and stakeholders, personal risks for researchers and stakeholders, and risks to the wider cause of scholarship. Yet, these costs are rarely referred to in the literature, which generally calls for greater inclusion of stakeholders in research processes, focusing exclusively on potential positives. There are few tools to help researchers avoid or alleviate risks to themselves and their stakeholders.Conclusions: First, we recommend identifying specific motivations for coproduction and clarifying exactly which outcomes are required for whom for any particular piece of research. Second, we suggest selecting strategies specifically designed to enable these outcomes to be achieved, and properly evaluated. Finally, in the absence of strong evidence about the impact and process of coproduction, we advise a cautious approach to coproduction. This would involve conscious and reflective research practice, evaluation of how coproduced research practices change outcomes, and exploration of the costs and benefits of coproduction. We propose some preliminary advice to help decide when coproduction is likely to be more or less useful.