Index

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

• funding programs, 272

•  
• 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
  • assessment tools, 42

• 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