CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 75Mental Health and Patient InvolvementHealth Policy Implementation ScienceCommunity Health and Development

A qualitative evaluation of participants' experiences of using co‐design to develop a collective leadership educational intervention for health‐care teams

Open access
Pallesen, Kirsten Siig, Rogers, Lisa, Anjara, Sabrina, De Brún, Aoife, McAuliffe, Eilish·2020·Health Expectations
DOI 10.1111/hex.13002PMC PMC7104638
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Introduction: Co‐design involves stakeholders as design partners to ensure a better fit to user needs. Many benefits of involving stakeholders in design processes have been proposed; however, few studies have evaluated participants’ experience of co‐design in the development of educational interventions. As part of a larger study, health‐care professionals, researchers and patients co‐designed a collective leadership intervention for health‐care teams. This study evaluated their experiences of the co‐design process. Methods: Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with individuals (n = 10) who took part in the co‐design workshops. Interviews were audio‐recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. Results: Four key themes were identified from the data: (a) Managing expectations in an open‐ended process; (b) Establishing a positive team climate; (c) Focusing on frustrations—challenging but informative; and (d) Achieving a genuine co‐design partnership. Conclusions: The development of a positive team climate is essential to the co‐design process. Organizers should focus on building strong working relationships from the beginning to enable open discussion. Organizers of co‐design should be conscious of establishing and maintaining a genuine partnership where participants are involved as equal partners and co‐creators. This can be done through the continuous use of feedback to allow participants to influence the workshop directions, and through limiting researcher domination. Lastly, co‐design can be daunting, but organizers can positively impact participants’ experience by acknowledging the emergent nature of the process in order to reduce participant apprehension, thereby limiting the barriers to participation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/hex.13002

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Initial interactions among stakeholders from diverse backgrounds and areas of expertise can often be met with apprehension.

    “It is especially important because initial interactions among stakeholders from diverse backgrounds and areas of expertise can often be met with apprehension41.”

    From Establishing organizational AI governance in healthcare: a case study in Canada (2025) · cites this paper as [41]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. [1]Steen M, Manschot M, De Koning N. Benefits of co‐design in service design projects. Int J Des. 2011; 5(2): 2011.
  2. [2]Ogden T, Fixsen DL. Implementation science: a brief overview and a look ahead. Z Für Psychol. 2014; 222(1): 4‐ 11.
  3. [3]McEvoy R. Service User Involvement in the Irish Health Service: A Review of the Evidence / Researched by Rachel McEvoy, Celia Keenaghan, Aveen Murray; 2008 http://hdl.handle.net/10147/45885
  4. [4]Bagley HJ, Short H, Harman NL, et al. A patient and public involvement (PPI) toolkit for meaningful and flexible involvement in clinical trials – a work in progress. Res Involv Engagem. 2016; 2(1): 15. 29062516 PMC5611579
  5. [5]Chu LF, Utengen A, Kadry B, et al. “Nothing about us without us”—patient partnership in medical conferences. BMJ. 2016; 354: i3883. 27628427
  6. [6]Bate P, Robert G. Bringing User Experience to Healthcare Improvement: The Concepts, Methods and Practices of Experience‐Based Design. Oxford, UK: Radcliffe Publishing; 2007.
  7. [7]Sanchez de la Guia L, Cazorla M, De‐Miguel‐Molina B. Terms and meanings of “participation” in product design: from “user involvement” to “co‐design”. Des J. 2017; 20: S4539‐ S4551.
  8. [8]Binder T, Brandt E, Gregory J. Design participation(‐s) – a creative commons for ongoing change. CoDesign. 2008; 4(2): 79‐ 83.
  9. [9]Goodyear‐Smith F, Jackson C, Greenhalgh T. Co‐design and implementation research: challenges and solutions for ethics committees. BMC Med Ethics. 2015; 16(1): 78. 26573410 PMC4647576
  10. [10]Balas EA, Boren SA. Managing clinical knowledge for health care improvement.Yearb Med Inform 2000 Patient‐Centered Syst 2000 http://hdl.handle.net/10675.2/617990 27699347
  11. [11]Grant J, Green L, Mason B. Basic research and health: a reassessment of the scientific basis for the support of biomedical science. Res Eval. 2003; 12(3): 217‐ 224.
  12. [12]Morris AC, Hay AW, Swann DG, et al. Reducing ventilator‐associated pneumonia in intensive care: Impact of implementing a care bundle*. Crit Care Med. 2011; 39(10): 2218‐ 2224. 21666444
  13. [13]Bauer MS, Damschroder L, Hagedorn H, Smith J, Kilbourne AM. An introduction to implementation science for the non‐specialist. BMC Psychol. 2015; 3(1): 32. 26376626 PMC4573926
  14. [15]Boaz A, Robert G, Locock L, et al. What patients do and their impact on implementation: an ethnographic study of participatory quality improvement projects in English acute hospitals. M. McDermott and Anne Reff. Pedersen A, ed. J Health Organ Manag. 2016; 30(2): 258‐ 278. 27052625
  15. [16]Margaret Maher L, Hayward B, Hayward P, Walsh C. Increasing patient engagement in healthcare service design: a qualitative evaluation of a co‐design programme in New Zealand. Patient Exp J. 2017; 4: 23‐ 32.
  16. [17]Bowen S, McSeveny K, Lockley E, Wolstenholme D, Cobb M, Dearden A. How was it for you? Experiences of participatory design in the UK health service. CoDesign. 2013; 9(4): 230‐ 246.
  17. [18]Haines KJ, Holdsworth C, Cranwell K, et al. Development of a peer support model using experience‐based co‐design to improve critical care recovery. Crit Care Explor. 2019; 1(3): e0006. 32166251 PMC7063862
  18. [21]McAuliffe E, De Brún A, Ward M, et al. Collective leadership and safety cultures (Co‐Lead): protocol for a mixed‐methods pilot evaluation of the impact of a co‐designed collective leadership intervention on team performance and safety culture in a hospital group in Ireland. BMJ Open. 2017; 7(11): e017569. PMC5695301 29101137
  19. [22]Ward ME, De Brún A, Beirne D, et al. Using co‐design to develop a collective leadership intervention for healthcare teams to improve safety culture. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018; 15(6): 1182. PMC6025638 29874883
  20. [25]Tuckman BW. Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychol Bull. 1965; 63(6): 384‐ 399. 14314073
  21. [26]Wiewiora A, Keast R, Brown K. Opportunities and challenges in engaging citizens in the co‐production of infrastructure‐based public services in Australia. Public Manag Rev. 2016; 18(4): 483‐ 507.
  22. [28]West MA. The social psychology of innovation in groups Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psychological and Organizational Strategies. Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons; 1990: 309‐ 333.
  23. [29]Anderson NR, West MA. Measuring climate for work group innovation: development and validation of the team climate inventory. J Organ Behav. 1998; 19(3): 235‐ 258.
  24. [30]Ward M, Ní Shé É, De Brún A, et al. The co‐design, implementation and evaluation of a serious board game 'PlayDecide patient safety' to educate junior doctors about patient safety and the importance of reporting safety concerns. BMC Med Educ. 2019; 19(1): 232. 31238936 PMC6593521

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pallesen, K. S., Rogers, L., Anjara, S., De Brún, A., & McAuliffe, E.
Affiliations
  • University College Dublin (IE)
  • UCD Centre for Interdisciplinary Research, Education and Innovation in Health Systems, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems University College Dublin Dublin 4 Ireland
ORCID
Venue
Health Expectations
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-01-30
Volume
23
Issue
2
Pages
358-367
ISSN
  • 1369-6513 (ISSN-L)
  • 1369-7625
DOI
10.1111/hex.13002
PMC
PMC7104638
OpenAlex
W3003676765
Cited by
75
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1
FWCI
7.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Health Expectations (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Lenus, The Irish Health Repository (Dr Steevens Hospital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Health Service Executive
  • Irish Health Research Board (RL-2015-1588)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Community Health and Development
Keywords
co-design, shared leadership, healthcare teams, educational intervention, stakeholder engagement, participant experiences, team climate, barriers to participation, healthcare workers, patients
MeSH terms
Feedback, Health Personnel, Humans, Leadership, Patient Care Team, Research Personnel

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review