See the published version of this preprint at Research Involvement and Engagement.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research article
Eleonora Gheduzzi
Politecnico di Milano
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7449-3379
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: Co-production has been widely recognized as a plausible solution to reduce users’ dissatisfactions, service providers’ inefficacy and to diminish conflicts in relations between users and providers. However, this enhancement of co-production has started to be query: co-production is not always a panacea and its effects may not be always fruitful. To understand and prevent unsuccessful users and providers’ collaboration, the recent literature has stated to focus on the causes of co-destruction. This paper investigates the possible factors that may facilitate the shifting of a co-production process applied to family caregivers of older patients living in rural and remote area, into a co-destruction process by looking at the whole service network.
Methods: To investigate this open topic, we performed a single case study by looking at a longitudinal project (Place4Carers) that aimed at co-producing a new public service with and for family caregivers of older patients living in rural and remote area. We organised collaborative workshops and semi-structured interviews to collect the perspectives of family caregivers and service providers on the co-production process. As part of the research team that participated at the co-production process, the authors joined the reflections with a reflexive approach.
Results: Results confirmed the occurrence of some causes of co-destruction suggested by Jarvi’s model during the co-production process: insufficient level of trust, mistakes, inability to change from caregivers and inability to serve from providers. Moreover, they identified the difficulty of creating a cohesive partnership between research members as a possible pitfall of co-production. However, all these causes did not imply an inevitable process of co-destruction.
Conclusions: Our article suggests that pitfalls identified by Jarvi and the cultural differences within research members can actually influence co-production but do not inevitably lead to co-destruction. Moreover, we argued that co-creation and co-destruction processes might coexist. The role of researchers and service providers is to prevent and recover from co-destruction effects. To this ends, conviviality could be a powerful tool to avoid lack of trust and create a successful co-production.
Plain English Summary
Co-production, defined as ‘the provision of services through regular, long-term relationships between professionalized service providers and service users or other members of the community, where all parties make substantial resource contributions’[1], has been widely recognized as a plausible solution to reduce users’ dissatisfaction, providers’ service inefficacy and to diminish conflicts in relations between users and providers. However, the effectiveness of co-production has started to be queried. This paper investigated the possible factors that may facilitate the shifting of a co-production process into a co-destruction process by looking at all the actors of the service network. To this end, we performed a single case study by investigating the co-production of new public service with family caregivers of elderly people living in rural and remote area, a local home care agency and researchers. Participants were interviewed about pro and cons of the co-production process.
The results highlighted that the effectiveness of co-production was limited by some pitfalls: insufficient level of trust, mistakes, inability to change and inability to serve. Moreover, a difficulty of creating a cohesive partnership between research members has been highlighted as a challenging factor in the co-production process. However, all these factors did not imply an inevitable process of co-destruction. Indeed, the process of co-production resulted to have both pitfalls and benefits. Therefore, researchers and service providers should facilitate the shifting from negative toward positive effects of co-production. To this ends, conviviality could be a powerful tool to avoid lack of trust and create a successful co-production.
Keywords
co-production, public, co-destruction, pitfall, caregiver, co-creation
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Research Involvement and Engagement.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 01 Feb, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 16 Jan, 2021
Review #3 received
Received 15 Jan, 2021
Review #2 received
Received 15 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 10 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 10 Jan, 2021
Editor assigned
On 07 Jan, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 07 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 07 Jan, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 07 Jan, 2021
Editor invited
On 07 Jan, 2021
No comments provided
Review #3 received
Received 10 Oct, 2020
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 10 Oct, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 08 Oct, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 01 Oct, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 24 Sep, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 17 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 17 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 17 Sep, 2020
Editor assigned
On 09 Sep, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 08 Sep, 2020
Editor invited
On 08 Sep, 2020
Version 1
Posted 12 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Review #4 received
Received 11 Jul, 2020
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 11 Jul, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 01 Jul, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 01 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #5 agreed
On 29 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #4 agreed
On 24 Jun, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 23 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 22 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 21 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 11 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 10 Jun, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 10 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 09 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 09 Jun, 2020
First submitted
On 08 Jun, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Other Public Policy
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at Research Involvement and Engagement.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Eleonora Gheduzzi
Politecnico di Milano
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7449-3379
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Research Involvement and Engagement.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 01 Feb, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 16 Jan, 2021
Review #3 received
Received 15 Jan, 2021
Review #2 received
Received 15 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 10 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 10 Jan, 2021
Editor assigned
On 07 Jan, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 07 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 07 Jan, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 07 Jan, 2021
Editor invited
On 07 Jan, 2021
No comments provided
Review #3 received
Received 10 Oct, 2020
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 10 Oct, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 08 Oct, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 01 Oct, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 24 Sep, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 17 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 17 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 17 Sep, 2020
Editor assigned
On 09 Sep, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 08 Sep, 2020
Editor invited
On 08 Sep, 2020
Version 1
Posted 12 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Review #4 received
Received 11 Jul, 2020
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 11 Jul, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 01 Jul, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 01 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #5 agreed
On 29 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #4 agreed
On 24 Jun, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 23 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 22 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 21 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 11 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 10 Jun, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 10 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 09 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 09 Jun, 2020
First submitted
On 08 Jun, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Other Public Policy
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at Research Involvement and Engagement.
Background: Co-production has been widely recognized as a plausible solution to reduce users’ dissatisfactions, service providers’ inefficacy and to diminish conflicts in relations between users and providers. However, this enhancement of co-production has started to be query: co-production is not always a panacea and its effects may not be always fruitful. To understand and prevent unsuccessful users and providers’ collaboration, the recent literature has stated to focus on the causes of co-destruction. This paper investigates the possible factors that may facilitate the shifting of a co-production process applied to family caregivers of older patients living in rural and remote area, into a co-destruction process by looking at the whole service network.
Methods: To investigate this open topic, we performed a single case study by looking at a longitudinal project (Place4Carers) that aimed at co-producing a new public service with and for family caregivers of older patients living in rural and remote area. We organised collaborative workshops and semi-structured interviews to collect the perspectives of family caregivers and service providers on the co-production process. As part of the research team that participated at the co-production process, the authors joined the reflections with a reflexive approach.
Results: Results confirmed the occurrence of some causes of co-destruction suggested by Jarvi’s model during the co-production process: insufficient level of trust, mistakes, inability to change from caregivers and inability to serve from providers. Moreover, they identified the difficulty of creating a cohesive partnership between research members as a possible pitfall of co-production. However, all these causes did not imply an inevitable process of co-destruction.
Conclusions: Our article suggests that pitfalls identified by Jarvi and the cultural differences within research members can actually influence co-production but do not inevitably lead to co-destruction. Moreover, we argued that co-creation and co-destruction processes might coexist. The role of researchers and service providers is to prevent and recover from co-destruction effects. To this ends, conviviality could be a powerful tool to avoid lack of trust and create a successful co-production.
Plain English Summary
Co-production, defined as ‘the provision of services through regular, long-term relationships between professionalized service providers and service users or other members of the community, where all parties make substantial resource contributions’[1], has been widely recognized as a plausible solution to reduce users’ dissatisfaction, providers’ service inefficacy and to diminish conflicts in relations between users and providers. However, the effectiveness of co-production has started to be queried. This paper investigated the possible factors that may facilitate the shifting of a co-production process into a co-destruction process by looking at all the actors of the service network. To this end, we performed a single case study by investigating the co-production of new public service with family caregivers of elderly people living in rural and remote area, a local home care agency and researchers. Participants were interviewed about pro and cons of the co-production process.
The results highlighted that the effectiveness of co-production was limited by some pitfalls: insufficient level of trust, mistakes, inability to change and inability to serve. Moreover, a difficulty of creating a cohesive partnership between research members has been highlighted as a challenging factor in the co-production process. However, all these factors did not imply an inevitable process of co-destruction. Indeed, the process of co-production resulted to have both pitfalls and benefits. Therefore, researchers and service providers should facilitate the shifting from negative toward positive effects of co-production. To this ends, conviviality could be a powerful tool to avoid lack of trust and create a successful co-production.
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...