Search results

Sexual health is insufficiently addressed in health care and higher education, which can lead to lower quality of life and negative health outcomes. To improve the situation, it is necessary to address both the needs of patients and professionals and collaboratively engage in finding sustainable solutions. The purpose of this paper is to explore the feasibility and value of large-scale digital coproduction in higher education.

A study of a project that developed seven interprofessional, digital master-level courses covering different topics related to sexual health. The project was performed through digital coproduction in higher education, with over 100 persons with various backgrounds working together online in designing content and novel digital learning activities.

Large-scale digital coproduction in higher education is feasible and valuable, but the process demands sensitive leadership, understanding of coproduction processes and willingness to learn from each other. To meet the demands from practice it is important to understand the complexity, ever-changing and unpredictable working life changes which, in turn, demands engagement in continuous learning, training activities and the need for formal education.

The study provides learning of the feasibility of the value of large-scale digital coproduction in higher education, which is a novel way of working in higher education.

This work aims to identify the characteristics of the coproduction of the common good, or public services, from the models of public administration found in projects awarded by the United Nations, specifically in the 2014 United Nations Public Service Award (UNPSA) category of “encouraging participation in public policy decisions through innovative mechanisms.” This multicase documentary analysis uses a typology of coproduction adapted from Salm and Menegasso (2010), which integrates several typologies of public participation. The revised typology includes five models of coproduction – community-led coproduction, state-led coproduction, self-interested coproduction, symbolic coproduction, and manipulative coproduction. The typology is used in the analysis of two United Nations award-winning projects in 2014: a community participation project for the effective management of malaria at Tha Song Yang in Thailand and the Intercouncil Forum in Brazil. This first case displays a preponderance of the self-interested coproduction ideal type, due to its focus on efficiency and delivery effectiveness of the service. The second case displays a preponderance of the symbolic coproduction ideal type due to its use of consultation practices to give the impression that there is direct participation in the decision-making, without substantive effect on the outcomes. Based on this analysis, recommendations are made for revising the criteria used by the UNPSA to ensure that projects with similar participation to those in the state-led and community-led coproduction models are awarded in the future.

The purpose of this study is examined whether coproduction appears spontaneously in the literature on public sector innovation and governance, the citizens’ role in coproduction and the implication of citizens’ participation in the governance of innovation networks.

The review complied with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) protocol. The search was performed in the Ebsco, Scopus and WOS databases. The authors analyzed 47 papers published from 2017 to 2022. Thematic and content analysis were adopted, supported by MAXQDA.

The papers recognize the importance of the citizens in public innovation. However, only 20% discuss coproduction, evidencing the predominance of governance concepts related to interorganizational collaborations – but not necessarily to citizen engagement. The authors also verified the existence of polysemy regarding the concept of governance associated with public innovation, predominating the term “collaborative governance.”

The small emphasis on “co-production” may result from the search strategy, which deliberately did not include it as a descriptor, considering the research purpose. One can consider this choice a limitation.

Considering collaborative governance as a governing arrangement where public agencies directly engage nonstate stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is formal, consensus-oriented and deliberative (Ansell and Gash, 2007), the forum where the citizen is supposed to be engaged should be initiated by public agencies or institutions and formally organized, as suggested by Österberg and Qvist (2020) and Campomori and Casula (2022). These notions can be useful for public managers concerning their role and how the forums structure should be to promote collaboration and the presence of innovation assets needed to make the process fruitful (Crosby et al., 2017).

Despite the collaborative nature of public innovation, the need for adequate governance characteristics, and the importance of citizens in the innovative process, most studies generically address collaborative relationships, focusing on interorganizational collaboration, with little focus on specific actors such as citizens in the governance of public innovation. Thus, it is assumed that the literature that discusses public innovation and governance includes the discussion of coproduction. The originality and contribution of this study is to verify this assumption.

At the beginning of the 21st century, multiple and diverse social entities, including the public (consumers), private and nonprofit healthcare institutions, government (public health) and other industry sectors, began to recognize the limitations of the current fragmented healthcare system paradigm. Primary stakeholders, including employers, insurance companies, and healthcare professional organizations, also voiced dissatisfaction with unacceptable health outcomes and rising costs. Grand challenges and wicked problems threatened the viability of the health sector. American health systems responded with innovations and advances in healthcare delivery frameworks that encouraged shifts from intra- and inter-sector arrangements to multi-sector, lasting relationships that emphasized patient centrality along with long-term commitments to sustainability and accountability. This pathway, leading to a population health approach, also generated the need for transformative business models. The coproduction of health framework, with its emphasis on cross-sector alignments, nontraditional partner relationships, sustainable missions, and accountability capable of yielding return on investments, has emerged as a unique strategy for facing disruptive threats and challenges from nonhealth sector corporations. This chapter presents a coproduction of health framework, goals and criteria, examples of boundary spanning network alliance models, and operational (integrator, convener, aggregator) strategies. A comparison of important organizational science theories, including institutional theory, network/network analysis theory, and resource dependency theory, provides suggestions for future research directions necessary to validate the utility of the coproduction of health framework as a precursor for paradigm change.

This paper aims to explore the challenges of coproduction at individual, team, service, organisational and system level and critically describes the work of one organization to describe ways in which coproduction can be facilitated.

This is a case study of the approaches developed (coproduced) within an independent not-for-profit mental health consultancy organization to facilitate coproduction at every level.

Although much is published about coproduction in research, there is relatively little guidance relating to coproduction in practice. This paper describes the meaning, purpose and impact of coproduction at different levels and gives examples of how it can be achieved. The learning from his work is drawn together to present a series of findings with recommendations including: inclusion, managing power difference, accommodating difference, generating new ways forward rather than debating and selecting existing options.

The literature on coproduction in practice is replete with guidance rather than examples of good practice. It is also apparent that the ambition for coproduction has progressed rapidly from coproduction between service providers and people using services to coproduction with all relevant stakeholders. This paper provides contemporary examples of coproduction in different forms and at different levels with attention to ways of overcoming challenges.

Coproduction is both a recurrent way of organizing public services and a maturing academic field. The academic debate has analyzed several facets, but one deserves further analysis: its impact on the cost efficiency of public services. The purpose of this paper is to aim at systematizing the findings on the relationship between coproduction and cost efficiency and at developing insights for future research.

This paper is based on a structured literature review (SLR), following the approach proposed by Massaro, Dumay and Guthrie. The SLR approach differs from traditional narrative reviews since, like other meta-analysis methods, it adopts a replicable and transparent process. At the same time, when compared to most common meta-analysis or systematic review logics, it is better suited to incorporate evidence from case studies and etnographies. This makes the method especially suited to public administration and management studies.

Results shed light on the nature of the academic literature relating coproduction to cost efficiency, on what type of costs are affected and how and on the meaningfulness of productivity measures when public services are co-produced.

In times of fiscal distress for many governments, the paper contributes to research and practice in systematically re-assessing the effects of coproduction on public budgets.

The purpose of this paper is to offer some personal reflections and experience of using coproduction in the NHS. The purpose is to demystify coproduction and it is hoped that sharing personal experience will encourage others who may be contemplating using this approach in their quality improvement work.

Informed by underpinning literature, the approach is a combination of sharing case studies that span several decades at both the macro and micro level. Whilst several of the examples used are not mental health specific, they are equally applicable in this setting.

Coproduction principles can be used at all levels of the health and care system and are generally empowering for those involved. By soliciting insights from those who would not normally have a voice, it can help to overcome blind spots and produce better products and services. There is a correlation between staff engagement and patient outcomes which provides compelling evidence for coproduction approaches to be incorporated into organisational practice. Furthermore, patients and service users should no longer be considered as passive recipients of care but as an integral component of quality improvement processes.

The case studies offer examples of using coproduction at a national, organisational and individual level. In particular, the lessons learned from design science such as “thinking like an anthropologist” are shared. The distinction is made between patient satisfaction and patient experience and the impact that coproduction can have on organisational culture is discussed. By mobilising resources, knowledge and expertise across communities, coproduction capitalises on the “wisdom of the crowds” philosophy.

Coproduction fundamentally changes the roles of citizens and governments. The purpose of this paper is to enhance the theoretical understanding of the transformative changes in the structural order of the public domain that result from the coproduction of public services.

This paper builds upon both the literature on coproduction of public services, new public governance and on social contracts between citizens and the state to identify the nature, drivers and implications of the transformation. The argument is illustrated with examples from crime control and healthcare.

The analysis identified an institutional misfit and highlights four key issues that are key to the understanding of the structural transformation of public services: compensation for time and knowledge resources, responses to new forms of (in)equality, risk of conflicts between citizens and re-organizing accountability.

The analysis highlights the need for further research into the implications of coproduction for government legitimacy, transfer of power, financial implications, representativeness and consequences for non-coproducing citizens.

This paper links instrumental debates about the coproduction of public services to fundamental debates about the relations between government and citizens and identifies substantial issues that are raised by this structural transformation in the public domain and that require new responses.

To analyze and discuss the research on the public healthcare services (PHCS) through the lenses of coproduction/creation by systematizing the antecedents, the process enablers and the outcomes of coproduction/creation in terms of organizational and individual/patients factors.

A systematic review was performed based on 46 papers found in ISI Web of Science and Scopus databases following the Prisma Protocol for the search.

The results show that antecedents of coproduction/creation are connected to organizational/institutional capabilities (e.g. codesign of services or trust development) or patient/individual factors (e.g. physical and mental capabilities). The process of coproduction/creation relates with enablers, such as interactive and dynamic relationships between public care service providers and users. Finally, outcomes have diverse nature, namely quality of life, compliance, behavioral intentions, among others.

This study addresses the overlooked topic of coproduction/creation of value within PHCS. It contributes to public healthcare services literature wherein concepts of coproduction and cocreation of value are still on debate. It contributes to the transformative service research (TSR) by underlining that healthcare factors, processes and approaches may have a positive or negative (value codestructing) influence on the well-being. It yields crucial implications for PHCS.

It is the first attempt to systematize scientific knowledge on this topic, therefore conferring some novelty potential.

The purpose of this study is to investigate coproduction behavior in networking alumni communities via the progress from platform belongingness, knowledge sharing and citizenship behavior. Alumni networking communities have emerged as valuable assets for conserving institutional resources, supporting members and contributing new resources for alumni-institutional professional development. However, the previous literature has not yet captured the explicit processes by which these contributions are made.

Data from 711 respondents selected from an alumni collaboration network were subjected to structural equation modeling analysis.

The study explored resource conservation (belongingness) as the primary relational mechanism for alumni to share their instrumental resources (knowledge sharing), supporting resources (citizenship behavior) and competent resources (coproduction behavior). Knowledge sharing and citizenship behavior act as intermediate agents to trigger coproduction behavior. The authors show how subjective norm, group norm and trust is regarded as a tool to reduce bonding intrusiveness (i.e. the intrusive side-effects of a bond) and moderate the indirect effect of belongingness on coproduction and the direct effect of citizenship on coproduction.

By applying attachment theory, conservation of resources theory and digital platform networking perspectives, this study describes major implications for designing inspiring and compatible community platforms.

Guidance is provided for improving sustainable alumni communities through citizenship-sharing and coproduction behavior.

Online alumni communities are regarded as resource conservators, which can result in valuable coproduction, via the sharing of knowledge, expertise and skillsets to create profit for a range of institutions and industries.

Alumni networking platforms encourage alumni cohesiveness, stimulate knowledge exchange and improve professionalism.