Samskapande av ett dialogverktyg för samverkan mellan forskare och hälso- och sjukvårdspersonal
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52585/icvs.v6i1.25Abstract
I denna studie samskapade vi ett dialogverktyg för samverkan mellan hälso- och sjukvårdspersonal och forskare. Denna samverkan skulle kunna bidra till att förbättra praktikens kvalitet och därmed vården för äldre personer.
Med hjälp av kvalitativ innehållsanalys analyserade vi data från tre tidigare forskningsstudier med fokus på hälso- och sjukvårdspersonals involvering i forskning. Analysen resulterade i två huvudkategorier, förutsättningar för framgångsrik interaktion vid samverkan och förutsättningar för framgångsrik arbetsgång vid samverkan, med ett antal underkategorier.
Genom forskningscirklar med hälso- och sjukvårdspersonal syntetiserade och validerade vi analysens resultat, och samskapade ett dialogverktyg som stöd för hälso- och sjukvårdspersonal och forskare som vill samverka i forskning. Dialogverktyget integrerar vetenskaplig och praktisk kunskap och ska underlätta och förbättra samverkan genom att belysa viktiga områden för diskussion, reflektion och beslut, samt stödja en jämlik dialog.
Co-creating a dialogue tool for collaboration between healthcare professionals and researchers in research projects
In this study a dialogue tool for collaboration between health care professionals and researchers was co-created. This collaboration can contribute to enhancing the quality of practice, and thereby the care provided to older adults.
Data from three previous research studies focusing on health care professionals’ involvement in research on ageing and health were analysed using qualitative content analysis. The qualitative analysis resulted in two main categories – Prerequisites for successful interaction in collaboration and Prerequisites for a successful work process in collaboration – with underlying subcategories.
Through research circles involving health care professionals, the results of the analysis were synthesised and validated, and a dialogue tool building on the categories was co-created as a support for health care professionals and researchers wishing to collaborate in research. The dialogue tool integrates scientific and practical knowledge and is intended to facilitate and improve collaboration by highlighting key areas for discussion, reflection, and decision-making, as well as to support an equitable dialogue.
Referenser
Aristoteles. Nicomachean ethics. Batoche books; 1999. [originalet publicierades ca 350 fvt.]
Augustinsson S, Petersson P. On discharge planning: dynamic complex processes – uncertainty, surprise and standardisation. Journal of research in nursing. 2015;20(1):39-53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987114564257
Bartunek JM, Rynes SL. Academics and practitioners are alike and unlike: the paradoxes of academic–practitioner relationships. Journal of management. 2014;40(5):1181-201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314529160
Beckett K, Farr M, Kothari A, Wye L, le May A. Embracing complexity and uncertainty to create impact: exploring the processes and transformative potential of co-produced research through development of a social impact model. Health research policy and systems. 2018;16(1):118. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0375-0
Belcher BM, Rasmussen KE, Kemshaw MR, Zornes DA. Defining and assessing research quality in a transdisciplinary context. Research evaluation. 2015;25(1):1-17. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv025
Berger R. Now I see it, now I don’t: researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative research. 2015;15(2):219-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112468475
Bloom DE, Chatterji S, Kowal P, Lloyd-Sherlock P, McKee M, Rechel B m fl. Macroeconomic implications of population ageing and selected policy responses. Lancet. 2015;385(9968):649-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(14)61464-1
Boaz A, Hanney S, Jones T, Soper B. Does the engagement of clinicians and organisations in research improve healthcare performance: a three-stage review. BMJ Open. 2015;5(12):e009415. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009415
Brante T. Den professionella logiken: Hur vetenskap och praktik förenas i det moderna kunskapssamhället. Liber; 2014.
Brante T. Vad är en profession? Teoretiska ansatser och definitioner. I: Lindh M, redaktör. Profession och vetenskap – idéer och strategier för ett professionslärosäte. Högskolan i Borås: 2009. Vetenskap för profession: 8. s. 15-34.
Bullock A, Morris ZS, Atwell C. Collaboration between health services managers and researchers: making a difference? Journal of health services research and policy. 2012;17(Suppl 2):2-10. https://doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2011.011099
Carlile PR. Transferring, translating, and transforming: an integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization science. 2004;15(5):555-68. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0094
Cooke J, Langley J, Wolstenholme D, Hampshaw S. ”Seeing” the difference: the importance of visibility and action as a mark of ”authenticity” in co-production; comment on ”Collaboration and co-production of knowledge in healthcare: opportunities and challenges”. International journal of health policy and management. 2017;6(6):345-8. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2016.136
Cornwall A, Jewkes R. What is participatory research? Social science and medicine. 1995;41(12):1667-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(95)00127-S
Daniels N, Gillen P, Casson K. Researcher practitioner engagement in health research: the development of a new concept. Research in nursing and health. 2021;44(3):534-47. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.22128
Di Bona L, Wenborn J, Field B, Hynes SM, Ledgerd R, Mountain G m fl. Enablers and challenges to occupational therapists’ research engagement: a qualitative study. British journal of occupational therapy. 2017;80(11):642-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308022617719218
Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of advanced nursing. 2008;62(1):107-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
Filipe A, Renedo A, Marston C. The co-production of what? Knowledge, values, and social relations in health care. PLOS Biology. 2017;15(5):e2001403. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2001403
Foreman KJ, Marquez N, Dolgert A, Fukutaki K, Fullman N, McGaughey M m fl. Forecasting life expectancy, years of life lost, and all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 250 causes of death: reference and alternative scenarios for 2016–40 for 195 countries and territories. Lancet. 2018;392(10159):2052-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31694-5
Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M. The new production of knowledge. Sage publications; 1994. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446221853
van der Graaf P, Forrest LF, Adams J, Shucksmith J, White M. How do public health professionals view and engage with research? A qualitative interview study and stakeholder workshop engaging public health professionals and researchers. BMC Public health. 2017;17(1):892. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4896-1
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
Greenhalgh T, Jackson C, Shaw S, Janamian T. Achieving research impact through co-creation in community-based health services: literature review and case study. Milbank quarterly. 2016;94(2):392-429. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12197
Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank quarterly. 2004;82(4):581-629. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0887-378x.2004.00325.x
Hickey DG. The potential for coproduction to add value to research. Health expectations. 2018;21(4):693-4. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12821
Holmstrand L, Härnsten G, Löwstedt J. The research circle approach: a democratic form for collaborative research in organizations. I: Shani AB, Hughes I. Action research in healthcare. I: Reason P, Bradbury H, redaktörer. Action research: participative inquiry and practice. 2:a uppl. Sage Publications; 2008. s. 381-93. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607934.n33
Hälso- och sjukvårdslag (SFS 2017:30). Socialdepartementet.
Härnsten G. The research circle. Building knowledge on equal terms. Swedish trade union confederation; 1994.
Ioannidis JPA. Why most clinical research is not useful. PLOS Medicine. 2016;13(6):e1002049. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002049
Iwarsson S, Edberg A-K, Ivanoff SD, Hanson E, Jönson H, Schmidt S. Understanding user involvement in research in aging and health. Gerontology and geriatric medicine. 2019;5:1-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2333721419897781
Jull J, Giles A, Graham ID. Community-based participatory research and integrated knowledge translation: advancing the co-creation of knowledge. Implementation science. 2017;12(1):150. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0696-3
Langley A, Lindberg K, Mørk BE, Nicolini D, Raviola E, Walter L. Boundary work among groups, occupations, and organizations: from cartography to process. Academy of management annals. 2019;13(2):704-36. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0089
Larsson A-C, Nordmark, S. Empowering dialogues. A way to democratise knowledge production? I: Gunnarsson E, Hansen HP, Steen Nielsen B, Sriskandarajah N, redaktörer. Action research for democracy: new ideas and perspectives from Scandinavia. Routledge; 2016. s. 75-89. Routledge advances in research methods; 17.
Laustsen CE, Petersson P, Westergren A, Haak M. Exploring health professionals’ experiences of being involved in a research project. Knowledge management research and practice. 2021;19(2):230-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2020.1762253
Laustsen CE, Petersson P, Westergren A, Haak M. Involvement of professionals in research: knowledge integration, development of practice, and challenges: a group concept mapping study. Health research policy and systems. 2021;19(1):115. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-021-00763-5
Laustsen CE, Westergren A, Petersson P, Haak M. Conceptualizing researchers’ perspectives on involving professionals in research: a group concept mapping study. Health research policy and systems. 2021;19(1):39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-021-00685-2
Lag om etikprövning av forskning som avser människor (2003:460). Utbildningsdepartementet.
Laird Y, Manner J, Baldwin L, Hunter R, McAteer J, Rodgers S m fl. Stakeholders’ experiences of the public health research process: time to change the system? Health research policy and systems. 2020;18(1):83. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-00599-5
Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Sage publications; 1985.
Lindeberg K. Samverkan. Liber; 2009.
Merriam S, Tisdell E. Qualitative research. A guide to design and implement. 4:e uppl. Jossey-Bass; 2016.
Mohrman SA, Pasmore WA, Stymne B, Adler N, redaktörer. Handbook of collaborative management research. Sage publications; 2008. s. 183-99. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412976671.n9
National institute for health research. Guidance on co-producing a research project. National institute for health research; 2021.
Nonaka I. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization science. 1994;5(1):14-37. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.1.14
Nyström ME, Strehlenert H. Advancing health services collaborative and partnership research; comment on ”Experience of health leadership in partnering with university-based researchers in Canada – a call to ’re-imagine’ research”. International journal of health policy and management. 2021;10(2):106-10. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2020.16
Pablos-Mendez A, Shademani R. Knowledge translation in global health. Journal of continuing education in the health professions. 2006;26(1):81-6. https://doi.org/10.1002/chp.54
Reason P, Canney S. Action research and ecological practice. I: Bradbury H, redaktör. The Sage handbook of action research. 3:e uppl. Sage publications; 2015. s. 553-63. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473921290.n57
Ross S, Lavis J, Rodriguez C, Woodside J, Denis JL. Partnership experiences: involving decision-makers in the research process. Journal of health services research and policy. 2003;8(Suppl. 2):26-34. https://doi.org/10.1258/135581903322405144
Rycroft-Malone J, Burton CR, Bucknall T, Graham ID, Hutchinson A, Stacey D. Collaboration and co-production of knowledge in healthcare: opportunities and challenges. International journal of health policy and management. 2016;5(4):221-3. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2016.08
Stuhlfauth S, Knutsen IR, Foss C. Users' and researchers' construction of equity in research collaboration. Health expectations. 2020;23(2):296-305. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13026
Ståhl A, Carlsson G, Hovbrandt P, Iwarsson S. ”Let's go for a walk!”: identification and prioritisation of accessibility and safety measures involving elderly people in a residential area. European journal of ageing. 2008;5(3):265-73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-008-0091-7
Svensson L, Ellström PE, Brulin G. Introduction – On interactive research. International journal of action research. 2007;3(3):233-49. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-356352
Tenkasi RV, Hay GW. Following the second legacy of Aristotle. I: Shani AB, Mohrman SA, Pasmore WA, Stymne B, Adler N, redaktörer. Handbook of collaborative management research. Sage publications; 2008. s. 49-72. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412976671.n3
Turner S, Sharp CA, Sheringham J, Leamon S, Fulop NJ. Translating academic research into guidance to support healthcare improvement: how should guidance development be reported? BMC health services research. 2019;19(1):1000. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4792-8
Uvhagen H, von Knorring M, Hasson H, Øvretveit J, Hansson J. Factors influencing early stage healthcare-academia partnerships. International journal of health care quality assurance. 2018;31(1):28-40. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijhcqa-11-2016-0178
Van de Ven AH, Johnson PE. Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of management review. 2006;31(4):802-21 https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.22527385
Världshälsoorganisationen WHO. UN Decade of healthy ageing: Plan of action 2021–2030. Världshälsoorganisationen WHO; 2020.
Wensing M, Grol R. Knowledge translation in health: How implementation science could contribute more. BMC Medicine. 2019;17:88. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-019-1322-9
Westergren A. Action-oriented study circles facilitate efforts in nursing homes to ”go from feeding to serving”: conceptual perspectives on knowledge translation and workplace learning. Journal of aging research. 2012;2012:627371. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/627371
##submission.downloads##
Publicerad
Referera så här
Nummer
Sektion
Licens
Copyright (c) 2025 Christine E. Laustsen, Maria Haak, Pia Petersson †, Albert Westergren
Detta verk är licensierat under en Creative Commons Erkännande-Ickekommersiell-IngaBearbetningar 4.0 Internationell-licens.
