SAPO – en modell för samverkan mellan forskare och aktörer utanför akademin inom området äldre och åldrande

Håkan Jönson; Sara Hultqvist; Susanne Iwarsson

doi:10.52585/icvs.v1i1.2

Författare

Håkan Jönson Socialhögskolan, Lunds universitet
Sara Hultqvist Socialhögskolan, Lunds universitet
Susanne Iwarsson Institutionen för hälsovetenskaper, Lunds universitet

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.52585/icvs.v1i1.2

Abstract

Den åldrande befolkningen har identifierats som en samhällsutmaning. En tydlig utveckling inom forskning om sådana utmaningar är krav på medverkan från patientgrupper, brukarorganisationer och andra aktörer utanför akademin.

Syftet med artikeln är att introducera en modell för utformning och värdering av samverkan mellan akademiska forskare och aktörer utanför akademin. Modellen bygger på en genomgång av internationellt etablerade traditioner och ramverk för sådan samverkan och ramas in av komponenterna syfte, aktör, process och omfattning (SAPO) eller enklare uttryckt genom frågorna: varför, med vem, när och hur mycket?

Med hjälp av modellen kan både forskare och aktörer utanför akademin föra mer systematiska och kritiskt värderande resonemang om samverkan. Det kan i sin tur leda till effektivare arbetsformer och nyttiggörande av resultat från det mångfasetterade forskningsområde som rör den åldrande befolkningen.

SAPO (PAMP) – a model for collaboration between researchers and external actors wihin the field of ageing studies

The ageing population has been identified as a societal challenge and it has been strongly emphasized that service users, interest groups and other actors that are external to academia should be included in this type of research.

The aim of the present article is to introduce a model for the construction and evaluation of collaboration between researchers and external actors. The model is based on a review of established traditions and frameworks for such collaboration. It is summarized in the components purpose, actor, magnitude and process (PAMP, SAPO in Swedish) corresponding to the questions why, with whom, how much and when?

The model will enhance the possibility of researches and external actors to approach collaboration systematically and evaluate it critically. This will in turn increase the efficiency of collaborative efforts and usefulness of findings within the multifaceted research field of ageing studies.

Referenser

Arnstein SR. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American institute of planners. 1969;35(4):216-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225

Bammer G. Key issues in co-creation with stakeholders when research problems are complex. Evidence and policy. 2019;15(3):423-35. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426419X15532579188099

Blair T, Minkler M. Participatory action research with older adults: Key principles in practice. The Gerontologist. 2009;49(5):651-62. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnp049

Coghlan D, Holian R. Insider action research. The sage encyclopedia of action research. Sage publications; 2007. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750307072872

Fixsen DL, Naoom SF, Blase KA, Friedman RM, Wallace, F. Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature (FMHl Publication No. 231). University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental health institute, National implementation research network; 2005.

Feltenius D. En pluralistisk maktordning. Om pensionärsorganisationernas politiska inflytande. Umeå universitet; 2004.

Forte. Forskning möter samhälle. 2015.

Forte. Forskning om åldrande och hälsa. 2017.

Freire P, Rodhe F. Pedagogik för förtryckta. Gummesson; 1972.

Förenta nationerna. Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. 2015.

Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage publications; 1994.

Greenhalgh T, Hinton L, Finlay T, Macfarlane A, Fahy N, Clyde B m fl. Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co-design pilot. Health expectations. 2019;22(4):785-801. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12888

Hultqvist S, Jonsson, O, Jönson, H, Iwarsson, S. A quest for codification or a way of legitimation? – Collaboration in ageing research. Submitted; 2020.

International association for public participation. IAP2's public participation spectrum. 2014.

Iwarsson S, Edberg A-K, Ivanoff SD, Hanson E, Jönson H, Schmidt S. Understanding user involvement in research in aging and health. Gerontoloy and geriatric medicine. 2019;5:2333721419897781. https://doi.org/10.1177/2333721419897781

Jonsson O, Iwarsson S. Scrutinizing the collaboration criterion in research: How do policy ambitions play out in proposals and assessments? Submitted; 2020.

Kunskap i samverkan – för samhällets utmaningar och stärkt konkurrenskraft. Utbildningsdepartementet; 2016. Regeringens proposition 2016/17:50.

Kylberg M, Haak M, Iwarsson S. Research with and about user participation: potentials and challenges. Ageing clinical and experimental research. 2018;30(1):105-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-017-0750-7

Lawrence R. Collective and creative consortia: combining knowledge, ways of knowing and praxis. Cities and health. 2020:1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2020.1711996

Lawrence R, Capon A, Siri JJC. Lessons from Hippocrates for contemporary urban health challenges. Health research policy. 2017;1(1):72-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2017.1372967

National institute for health research. Draft standards for public involvement in research. NIHR; 2017.

Nowotny H, Scott P. Rethinking science. Knowledge and the public in the age of uncertainty. Polity press; 2001.

Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M. Rethinking science. Knowledge and the public in the age of uncertainty. Polity press; 2001.

Rogers ES, Palmer-Erbs V. Participatory action research: Implications for research and evaluation in psychiatric rehabilitation. Psychosocial rehabilitation journal. 1994;18(2):3. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0095520

Rycroft-Malone J, Bucknall, T (red). Models and frameworks for implementing evidence-based practice: Linking evidence to action. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010.

Schilling I, Gerhardus A. Methods for involving older people in health research – a review of the literature. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2017: 14(12), 1476. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14121476

Seifert A, Schelling HR, Tönsmann S, Martin M. Participation in research: interest and opinions on participatory research among participants of a senior university. Zeitschrift für gerontologie und geriatrie. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-019-01609-0

Shippee ND, Domecq Garces JP, Prutsky Lopez GJ, Wang Z, Elraiyah TA, Nabhan M m fl. Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework. Health expectations. 2015;18(5):1151-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12090

Staniszewska S, Brett J, Mockford C, Barber R. The GRIPP checklist: Strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research. International journal of technology assessment in health care. 2011;27(4):391-9. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462311000481

Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S m fl. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. Research involvement and engagement. 2017;3(1):13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0062-2

Trentham BL, Neysmith SM. Exercising senior citizenship in an ageist society through participatory action research: A critical occupational perspective. Journal of occupational science. 2018;25(2):174-90. https://doi.org/10.1080/14427591.2017.1402809

Universitetens Magna charta. Sveriges universitets- och högskoleförbund; 1999.

Walker A. Why involve older people in research? Age and ageing. 2007;36(5):481-3. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afm100