CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 754Mental Health and Patient InvolvementCommunity Health and DevelopmentHealth Policy Implementation Science

The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?

Open access
Oliver, Kathryn, Kothari, Anita, Mays, Nicholas·2019·Health Research Policy and Systems
DOI 10.1186/s12961-019-0432-3PMC PMC6437844
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Coproduction, a collaborative model of research that includes stakeholders in the research process, has been widely advocated as a means of facilitating research use and impact. We summarise the arguments in favour of coproduction, the different approaches to establishing coproductive work and their costs, and offer some advice as to when and how to consider coproduction. DEBATE: Despite the multiplicity of reasons and incentives to coproduce, there is little consensus about what coproduction is, why we do it, what effects we are trying to achieve, or the best coproduction techniques to achieve policy, practice or population health change. Furthermore, coproduction is not free risk or cost. Tensions can arise throughout coproduced research processes between the different interests involved. We identify five types of costs associated with coproduced research affecting the research itself, the research process, professional risks for researchers and stakeholders, personal risks for researchers and stakeholders, and risks to the wider cause of scholarship. Yet, these costs are rarely referred to in the literature, which generally calls for greater inclusion of stakeholders in research processes, focusing exclusively on potential positives. There are few tools to help researchers avoid or alleviate risks to themselves and their stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: First, we recommend identifying specific motivations for coproduction and clarifying exactly which outcomes are required for whom for any particular piece of research. Second, we suggest selecting strategies specifically designed to enable these outcomes to be achieved, and properly evaluated. Finally, in the absence of strong evidence about the impact and process of coproduction, we advise a cautious approach to coproduction. This would involve conscious and reflective research practice, evaluation of how coproduced research practices change outcomes, and exploration of the costs and benefits of coproduction. We propose some preliminary advice to help decide when coproduction is likely to be more or less useful.

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 · 10.1186/s12961-019-0432-3

Cites

76 of 76 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?

  • The mechanisms through which the benefits of youth engagement are achieved have rarely been articulated or tested.

    “Yet, the mechanisms through which these benefits are achieved have rarely been articulated or tested, highlighting the lack of evaluation studies as one of the most critical gaps in the literature.”

    From A systematic review of theories, models and frameworks used for youth engagement in health research (2024) · cites this paper as [57]

    The Background (‘Why coproduce?’; page unavailable) says mechanisms by which engagement may improve research quality are not always articulated. The Background (‘How to coproduce?’; page unavailable) also says there are very few evaluations of coproductive approaches. These points concern coproduction broadly, not youth engagement specifically; the paper does not establish how rarely mechanisms of youth engagement have been tested. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The biggest gap in this area of research is the lack of evidence on impact gained through rigorous evaluation.

    “Given the near‐unanimous recognition that the biggest gap in this area of research is the lack of evidence on impact gained through rigorous evaluation, 43 , 57 , 58 , 61 , 90 the small number of impact‐focused models and frameworks is noteworthy.”

    From A systematic review of theories, models and frameworks used for youth engagement in health research (2024) · cites this paper as [57]

    The Background says there are very few evaluations of coproduction’s impact on research, practice, policy or population outcomes. The “How to coproduce?” section also identifies a lack of hard evidence about its impact on research quality. The paper does not establish that this is the biggest gap or that recognition of it is near-unanimous. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Many included studies agreed that engagement makes research more relevant by turning the focus on pertinent issues and by highlighting the importance of nonacademic perspectives in discovering 'unknown unknowns' and producing collaborative knowledge.

    “many agreed that engagement makes research more relevant by turning the focus on pertinent issues and by highlighting the importance of nonacademic perspectives in discovering ‘unknown unknowns’ and producing collaborative knowledge.”

    From A systematic review of theories, models and frameworks used for youth engagement in health research (2024) · cites this paper as [57]

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: 4

  1. [32]Walter I, Nutley S, Davies H. Research impact: a cross sector literature review. St. Andrews: Research Unit for Research Utilisation, Department of Management University of St. Andrews; 2003.
  2. [38]Rycroft-Malone J Burton C Wilkinson J Harvey G McCormack B Baker R Collective action for knowledge mobilisation: a realist evaluation of the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care. Health Services Delivery Research 2015 Southampton NIHR Journals Library 26677504
  3. [67]Graffy EA. Enhancing policy-relevance without burning up or burning out: A strategy for scientists. In: Science into Policy: Water in the Public Realm: Proceedings, Specialty Conference, June 30-July 2, 1999, Bozeman, Montana. Herndon: American Water Resources Association; 1999. p. 293–8.
  4. [80]Gluckman P Policy: the art of science advice to government Nature 2014 507 7491 163 165 24627919

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Oliver, K., Kothari, A., & Mays, N.
Affiliations
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • Western University (CA)
Corresponding author
Oliver, Kathryn
ORCID
Venue
Health Research Policy and Systems
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-03-28
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
33-33
ISSN
1478-4505 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12961-019-0432-3
PMC
PMC6437844
OpenAlex
W2925672674
Cited by
754
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 65 · 2025: 82 · 2024: 145 · 2023: 87 · 2022: 126 · 2021: 135 · 2020: 86 · 2019: 28
FWCI
127.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Health Research Policy and Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Community Health and Development
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
co-production, research utilization, research impact, research collaboration, research evaluation
MeSH terms
Stakeholder Participation, Cooperative Behavior, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Humans, Motivation, Research, Research Design

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