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 recognised as a plausible means to reduce the dissatisfaction of citizens, the inefficacy of service providers, and conflicts in relations between the former and the latter. However, the enhancement of co-production has begun to be questioned: co-production has often been taken for granted, and its effects may not always be fruitful. To understand and prevent unsuccessful citizen and provider collaboration, the recent literature has begun to focus on the causes of co-destruction. This paper investigates how the barriers that may arise during the co-production of a new social service with family carers can be identified and interpreted.
Methods: To investigate this topic, we undertook a single case study by considering a longitudinal project (Place4Carers) intended to co-produce a new social care service with and for the family carers of elderly patients living in rural and remote areas. We organised collaborative co-assessment workshops and semi-structured interviews to collect the views of family carers 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 analysis revealed four main co-production barriers: lack of trust, lack of effectiveness of engagement, participants’ inability (or impossibility) to change and the lack of a cohesive partnership among partners. Despite these findings, the project increases carers’ satisfaction, competence and trust in service providers by demonstrating the positive effects of co-production.
Conclusions: Our article confirms that co-creation and co-destruction processes may coexist. The role of researchers and service providers is to prevent or remedy co-destruction effects. To this end, we suggest that in co-production projects, more time should be spent co-assessing the project before, during and after the co-production process. This approach would facilitate the adoption of adjustment actions such as creating mutual trust through conviviality among actors and fostering collaborative research between academia and organisations that are not used to working together.
Keywords
co-production, co-destruction, co-creation, caregiver, carer, rural, remote, vulnerable, marginalize, fragile, patient engagement
Figure 1
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.
Version 3
Posted 15 Jan, 2021
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
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.
Version 3
Posted 15 Jan, 2021
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
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 recognised as a plausible means to reduce the dissatisfaction of citizens, the inefficacy of service providers, and conflicts in relations between the former and the latter. However, the enhancement of co-production has begun to be questioned: co-production has often been taken for granted, and its effects may not always be fruitful. To understand and prevent unsuccessful citizen and provider collaboration, the recent literature has begun to focus on the causes of co-destruction. This paper investigates how the barriers that may arise during the co-production of a new social service with family carers can be identified and interpreted.
Methods: To investigate this topic, we undertook a single case study by considering a longitudinal project (Place4Carers) intended to co-produce a new social care service with and for the family carers of elderly patients living in rural and remote areas. We organised collaborative co-assessment workshops and semi-structured interviews to collect the views of family carers 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 analysis revealed four main co-production barriers: lack of trust, lack of effectiveness of engagement, participants’ inability (or impossibility) to change and the lack of a cohesive partnership among partners. Despite these findings, the project increases carers’ satisfaction, competence and trust in service providers by demonstrating the positive effects of co-production.
Conclusions: Our article confirms that co-creation and co-destruction processes may coexist. The role of researchers and service providers is to prevent or remedy co-destruction effects. To this end, we suggest that in co-production projects, more time should be spent co-assessing the project before, during and after the co-production process. This approach would facilitate the adoption of adjustment actions such as creating mutual trust through conviviality among actors and fostering collaborative research between academia and organisations that are not used to working together.
Figure 1
Loading...