Background: Potential solutions to bridging the research practice gap include collaborative frameworks and models. Yet there is little evidence demonstrating their application in practice. In addressing this knowledge gap, this in-depth case study explored how the co-creation of new knowledge framework and its four collaborative processes (co-ideation, co-design, co-implementation, and co-evaluation) are utilised to support people who had attempted suicide through an Australian psychoeducational program known as Eclipse.
Methods: Using a case study design and a thematic analysis methodology, multiple sources of qualitative data (collaborative group discussion, personal communications) were analysed inductively and deductively to examine the implementation of co-creation and explore the perspectives of researchers and stakeholders about co-creation and collaborative relationships.
Results: Three broad themes were identified: (1) understanding the language and practice of co-creation, (2) perception of trust formation, and (3) the value of co-creation opportunities. Ultimately, implementing co-creation with or between researchers, industry and people with lived experience requires trust, reciprocity, good fortune, and good management. While implementing co-creation, the co-creation framework was revised to include additional elements identified as missing from the initially proposed framework.
Conclusion: Co-creation of new knowledge poses many challenges to researchers and stakeholders, particularly regarding its "messiness" and non-linear approach to implementation and evaluation. However, as this case study demonstrates, it has the potential to become an alternative framework of best practice for public health interventions in third sector organisations, most notably as it eliminates the often-lengthy gap reported between research evidence and translation into practice. The research highlights the need for co-creation to further study its effectiveness in integrating research and service delivery to generate new knowledge. This may lead to a cultural and behavioural change in the service provider's approach to research, offering better outcomes for providers, clients, policymakers, universities, and funders.
Keywords: Co-design; Co-evaluation; Co-ideation; Co-implementation; Collaboration; Multisectoral; Patient and public involvement; third sector organisations.
Organisations and researchers need to collaborate to produce new knowledge of health interventions. The literature identifies that there is a substantial evidence gap between producing knowledge and improving health outcomes. Here we reflect, via a case study methodology, on ways to co-create new knowledge by following a four-step collaborative process. The case study reviews the evaluation of an Australian-based psychoeducational program for people who attempt suicide by analysing multiple qualitative data sources to explore the perspectives of researchers and stakeholders. We discovered the need for a shared language of co-creation that focuses on experiences of collaboration while seeking out new value-creation opportunities and dismantling barriers. We learnt that implementing co-creation requires trust and good fortune within collaborative relationships alongside good management. Using the alternative collaboration framework of best practice for public health interventions in third sector organisations may eliminate gaps between research evidence and translation into practice, assisting health providers, clients, policymakers, universities, and funders.
© 2022. The Author(s).