Two blogs in one day. Blimey. I’ll be giving away small packets of face cream or toys with the next issue at this rate.
Someone asked me recently whether co-production was going to be the only thing that mattered in the future. Is all that is currently known as public involvement going to be painted over as co-production ? In the way that Prince re-branded himself as the artist with no name. Would we be saying to friends, family and colleagues in the future ‘I’m pro co-pro, are you?’
Well, no, I am sure you will be pleased to hear. Truth is that co-production is emerging as an approach that looks to have increasing utility in getting people to work differently in health research. It is another string to our bow. Part of the secret of its future success will be identifying its relevance and appropriateness, the contexts within which it will work best and with the best results.
As already presaged in this blog some time ago, INVOLVE has been working on some co-production principles building on previous work particularly in the social care field. Those principles are now finished and have been published today and you can find them here.
And in short-hand those are principles are as follows, but I won’t spoil it by saying the rest. Read and enjoy.
Sharing of power – the research is jointly owned and people work together to achieve a
Including all perspectives and skills – make sure the research team includes all those
who can make a contribution
Respecting and valuing the knowledge of all those working together on the research
– everyone is of equal importance
Reciprocity – everybody benefits from working together
Building and maintaining relationships – an emphasis on relationships is key to sharing power. There needs to be joint understanding and consensus and clarity over roles and responsibilities. It is also important to value people and unlock their potential.
One thought on “I’m pro co-pro are you? The march of co-production continues – here’s the final guidance from @NIHRINVOLVE on the principles of co-production #Coproduction”
I found this a very interesting and valuable document. It encompasses all I believe a research team should be, which simply stated, is everyone working together to deliver excellent research.
However, (and there is always a ‘however’), I have been involved in a roundabout way in measuring the impact of PPI. It is here I have a problem. If co-production really incorporates all the elements outlined in the document why is there a need to measure the impact of PPI? The public are an integral part of the research team, their success (or failure) depends on the combined strengths of the team, each dependent on the other. Why then assess PPI impact and not the impact of methodologists, health economists, and team leaders?
Would it not be better to assess the impact of the whole team on the outcomes of research projects?