MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969316128 · doi:10.1111/1440-1630.12605

Consumer and community co‐development in knowledge creation

2019· editorial· en· W2969316128 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Louise Gustafsson, Helen Bourke‐Taylor, Geneviève Pépin

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Occupational Therapy Journal · 2019
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRigourKnowledge translationRelevance (law)Public relationsProcess (computing)Translational researchCommunity of practiceKnowledge managementPsychologySociologyBusinessMedical educationMedicinePolitical sciencePedagogyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The involvement of consumers and community members in research is a priority area for research published in the Australian Occupational Therapy Journal. The journal views the meaningful contribution of people (consumers) and communities with lived experience and unique perspectives as a core element in the creation and translation of knowledge into practice that is equally as important as the rigour of the studies conducted. The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia assert that ‘health and medical research should develop processes and systems to incorporate and support sustainable consumer and community involvement’ (NHMRC, 2016, p. 8). The research process from development of questions, to design and implementation and then analysis and translation to appropriate contexts are all strengthened with consumer involvement and engagement. Although it is increasingly common for consumer and community members to be involved in agenda setting for research and to some extent protocol development, it is less common for that involvement to continue through the conduct of the research, analysis and knowledge translation processes (Domencq et al., 2014). Developing sustainable and meaningful processes for engaging with consumers and the wider community at all steps of the research process requires a high level of commitment and skill from all stakeholders. The translation of research findings to practice can be a slow and arduous process relying on professionals and others to identify, retrieve and apply evidence and knowledge. Embedding consumer perspectives at all points in the research process not only improves relevance of that research, it also empowers consumers to utilise that knowledge and share with their own communities. Hence, the current research to practice gap may be made less chiasmic as a result of consumer involvement in all steps of the research process (Buffel, 2018). Furthermore, in an era in Australia of unprecedented support for people to engage in decisions about their own health, disability, aged care and other supports, the demand for occupational therapists to collaborate to enable consumer involvement, choice and control is mandatory in research, practice and education. A paper previously published in the Australian Occupational Therapy Journal described the evaluation of training materials to support the participation of mental health consumers in research (Hancock, Bundy, Tamsett, & McMahon, 2012). Internationally, there are many great examples for how to ensure the validity of your research by the inclusion of consumer researchers throughout the process, however, notably the term patient is often used. The Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research has emerged from Canada and provides a key vision and capacity development framework that supports the engagement of people with lived experience as partners in the research process and ensures a study focus on patient-identified priorities (Canadian Institute of Health Research, 2015). The Patient and Community Engagement Research (PaCER) unit out of the University of Calgary trains patient and community researchers in qualitative research methods across a 12-month period including a project internship. As an example, Gill et al. (2016) employed four family members who completed the PaCER program as researchers to explore the experience of patients and family members in the intensive care unit and reported that it was a novel and feasible research approach. Buffel (2018) identified the importance of developing training activities for older adults and researchers, to address barriers to co-production such as a lack of competence among researchers to create effective partnership with consumers, stereotypes associated with consumers and assumptions about what they can and cannot do, and finally, consumer's hesitation to meaningfully engage in research and become co-researchers. Consumer involvement requires a rigorous protocol for professional engagement and contribution, as well as a risk management strategy to ensure meaningful and representative contribution. The authentic inclusion of consumer or community researchers challenges researchers and professionals who may have set their own agendas or responded to research targets and priority areas set by funding bodies in the past. Equally, consumer engagement is not always considered a strength to research with the ‘insider perspective’ a potential risk to research if there is no suspension of bias (Corbin Buckle & Dwyer, 2009). As a result, substantial attention to the area of consumer involvement must occur to avoid the pitfalls ranging from tokenistic consumer engagement through to complete agenda setting. Buffel (2018) developed a 7-stage process to support co-production in research with older adults that may be generalised to all areas of practice. The proposed stages provide clear guidelines to move beyond the usual tokenistic approach and co-produce research meaningfully and authentically. Together, consumers and researchers go through these seven stages: co-designing research objectives; co-producing research materials; collecting data among peers; collaboratively analysing data; co-producing and sharing findings; translating findings into practice; and evaluating impact in partnership (Buffel, 2018). An aim of co-produced research is to apply the philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of empowerment into practice (Durose, Beebeejaun, Rees, Richardson, & Richardson, 2012). Collaboration and involvement with consumers will be confronting on issues such as cultural differences in values and attitudes, appropriate language (i.e. labels such as ‘carer’ that may be assumed to be appropriate by professionals but rejected by families) and relative importance of issues (i.e. professionals aiming to investigate the efficacy of an occupational therapy intervention while consumers rate availability of skilled occupational therapists as a much a larger concern and real issue). Finding common and acceptable language, acknowledging and neutralising power issues and inclusive communication channels are some of the important areas for researchers, practitioners and educators to consider as the profession raises the bar on consumer involvement and collaboration in research. Co-produced research has the potential to give meaning to results for those who will benefit the most from the generated evidence, facilitating its translation and dissemination in relevant contexts and environments. The Australian Occupational Therapy Journal is seeking to increase the visibility of how consumers and community members are included in the research that is published. Researchers are encouraged to consider how to increase co-development and participation in all aspects of the research and to explicitly represent this within your submitted manuscripts.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.319
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.375
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.150 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Occupational Therapy JournalSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207