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 means to reduce the dissatisfaction of service users, the inefficacy of service providers, and conflicts in relations between the former and the latter. However, this enhancement of co-production has started to be questioned: co-production is not always a panacea, and its effects may not always be fruitful. To understand and prevent unsuccessful user and provider collaboration, the recent literature has begun to focus on the causes of co-destruction. This paper investigates how the possible limiting factors that arose during the co-production of a new social service with family caregivers of older patients living in a rural and remote area might influence the process of co-creation and/or co-destruction.
Methods: To investigate this topic, we performed a single case study by considering a longitudinal project (Place4Carers) intended to co-produce a new social care service with and for the family caregivers of elderly patients living in a rural and remote area. We organised collaborative co-assessment workshops and semi-structured interviews to collect the views of family caregivers and service providers on the co-production process. As part of the research team that participated in the co-production process, we contributed to the analysis with a reflexive approach.
Results: The results confirmed that the project experienced both the processes of co-creation and co-destruction. Some dimensions are crucial in such processes. In particular, the dimension related to trust in the promoter of a project and the other partners can determine its success or failure. Moreover, the level and effectiveness of engagement and creating a cohesive partnership among partners are key aspects for a co-creative project.
Conclusions: Our article confirms that the co-creation and co-destruction processes coexist. The role of researchers and service providers is to prevent or remedy co-destruction effects. To this end, we suggest that in co-creative projects more time should be spent on creating mutual trust through conviviality among participants, and institutions should foster collaborative research in order to help organizations that are not used to working together. Hence, particular attention should be paid to internal evaluative procedures.
Keywords
co-production, co-destruction, co-creation, caregiver, carer, rural, remote, vulnerable, marginalize, fragile, patient engagement
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
Version 2
Posted 14 Sep, 2020
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
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
Version 2
Posted 14 Sep, 2020
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
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 means to reduce the dissatisfaction of service users, the inefficacy of service providers, and conflicts in relations between the former and the latter. However, this enhancement of co-production has started to be questioned: co-production is not always a panacea, and its effects may not always be fruitful. To understand and prevent unsuccessful user and provider collaboration, the recent literature has begun to focus on the causes of co-destruction. This paper investigates how the possible limiting factors that arose during the co-production of a new social service with family caregivers of older patients living in a rural and remote area might influence the process of co-creation and/or co-destruction.
Methods: To investigate this topic, we performed a single case study by considering a longitudinal project (Place4Carers) intended to co-produce a new social care service with and for the family caregivers of elderly patients living in a rural and remote area. We organised collaborative co-assessment workshops and semi-structured interviews to collect the views of family caregivers and service providers on the co-production process. As part of the research team that participated in the co-production process, we contributed to the analysis with a reflexive approach.
Results: The results confirmed that the project experienced both the processes of co-creation and co-destruction. Some dimensions are crucial in such processes. In particular, the dimension related to trust in the promoter of a project and the other partners can determine its success or failure. Moreover, the level and effectiveness of engagement and creating a cohesive partnership among partners are key aspects for a co-creative project.
Conclusions: Our article confirms that the co-creation and co-destruction processes coexist. The role of researchers and service providers is to prevent or remedy co-destruction effects. To this end, we suggest that in co-creative projects more time should be spent on creating mutual trust through conviviality among participants, and institutions should foster collaborative research in order to help organizations that are not used to working together. Hence, particular attention should be paid to internal evaluative procedures.
Loading...