Högskolan i Skövde

This chapter focuses on understanding health psychology in the wider system. The main aim is to show the interdisciplinary reach of health psychology and to highlight the importance of interconnectivity and collaborative working. Initially, synergies and differences between health psychology and other practitioner psychology branches will be discussed. The chapter will then focus outwards on the connection of health psychology with the biopsychosocial sciences. A particular focus will be made on behavioural, social, and medical sciences. The chapter will conclude with a discussion on the role health psychology plays and could play in multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinary teams.

Introduction: Sparse education on sexual health promotion for health and welfare professionals can lead to unequal sexual health care provision, with related needs and rights being insufficiently met. To improve knowledge for health and welfare professionals, co-production and shared learning are essential, as students’ learning, and professional development are facilitated by effective partnerships between universities and workplaces. Methods: Using a theoretical framework based on the concepts co-production, work-integrated learning, digital teaching and digital didactics, an initial programme theory was created. Thereafter, a realist evaluation was made of outcomes from five different digital master-level courses, all covering various aspects of sexual health promotion. Four data sources were used: 1) midway course evaluation from 32 students analysed with reflective thematic analysis, 2) focus group interviews with four teachers, analysed with reflective thematic analysis, 3) Students’ Attitudes to Sexual Health Extended survey pre- and post-test with 17 students, analysed with comparative statistics, and 4) learning analytics based on data from the digital tool FeedbackFruits, where interactions were analysed using a digital whiteboard). Results: The analysis resulted in a refined programme theory indicating that students found courses relevant for practice, became more comfortable talking about sexual health in practice and applied their learning in practice. Discussion: The study supports the value of co-production in developing and delivering digital master-level courses in sexual health promotion for professionals, and the added value of work-integrated learning in this setting and highlights the need for digital literacy among both students and teachers. Confirmation or contradiction of the findings should be tested in this and other settings, and preferably with a larger sample.

The need to uncover the bibliographic field of work-integrated learning (WIL) stems from the increased interest to include WIL in higher education and present positive outcomes of WIL. This bibliographic review of WIL aims to understand the connectedness and trajectory of WIL in scientific publications and to explore the most influential actors. The amount of WIL research is increasing rapidly and there is global interest in the research field, even if there are dominating countries, such as Australia. From both citations, co-citations, and bibliographic coupling it is evident that there are highly influential countries, sources, publications, and authors in WIL research, which shape the bibliographic landscape of WIL. As WIL is an emerging research field, additional bibliographic reviews in coming years can show future trends in WIL research and potential differences between countries and disciplines.

Co-production in research is not only encouraged but rapidly becoming a required consideration in health research funding. The challenge in defining co-production continues and the misapplication of co-production has led to growing calls for an emphasis on operationalising the values and principles of co-production in research. This commentary considers Rycroft-Malone and colleagues' key messages about co-production being more than a set of activities, and reflects on the challenges within the academic sector when applying co-production. The Co-producing Meaningful Principles and Sharing Standards (Co-MPASS) tool offers a way to consider co-production values in the early stages of collaboration. Rather than a stand-alone tool for co-production, it is intended to be used with established methods and published toolboxes to emphasise co-production principles through reflection, conversation, documentation, and learning.

Recent years have seen a dramatic growth in interest in the nature and extent of co-production in the health and social care sectors. Due to the proliferation of work on co-production, there is variation in practice in how co-production is defined, understood, and used in practice. We conducted a narrative review to explore, and provide an overview of, which models of health and social care co-production have been developed, applied, and critiqued over recent decades. Seventy-three peer-reviewed articles met our inclusion criteria. In this set of articles, we identified three broad types of models: conceptual/theoretical, practice-oriented, and presenting a typology. We found that practice-oriented models, predominantly from the Health Services Research and Quality Improvement literature, had largely not drawn on conceptual/theoretical models from the disciplinary fields of Public Administration & Management and Sociology. In particular, they have largely neglected theoretical perspectives on relationships and power and agency in co-production work. The concepts of Service-Dominant Logic and Public Service-Dominant Logic as ways to think about the joint, collaborative process of producing new value, particularly in the context of the use of a service, have also been neglected. Our review has identified distinct literatures which have contributed a variety of models of health and social care co-production. Our findings highlight under-explored dimensions of co-production that merit greater attention in the health and social care contexts. The overview of models of co-production we provide aims to offer a useful platform for the integration of different perspectives on co-production in future research and practice in health and social care.

Background

Mental health problems (MHP) are a major public health challenge. Conventional healthcare has shown limitation on reducing MHP and there is a call for offering methods beyond healthcare as well as improve access to healthcare.

Aims

To explore experiences among people having MHP of (i) taking part in existential conversations in groups beyond conventional healthcare and (ii) seeking and receiving conventional healthcare.

Materials and methodsFour focus group interviews were conducted after finishing existential conversations in groups. Data was analyzed following thematic analysis.

Results

The theme Access to a community for exploration and acceptance describes communication through impressions and expressions together with others. A reflective perspective on everyday life, describes re-evaluation through reflection. Within the theme Experiences of healthcare related encounters, referring to the second aim, participants recollected feelings of disconnectedness, difficulties verbalizing MHP and dealing with rigid, standardized measures.

Conclusion

Existential conversations in group may contribute to a more reflected doing in accordance with one’s own values as well as improved mental health literacy. Design and measures within healthcare need to explicitly address MHP and consider individual’s own preferences.

Significance

This study contributes to understanding of coping with MHP in everyday life from an existential perspective.

Objectives: Analyse reported processes of co-design and co-production in the context of health and social care to explore the underlying mechanisms that enable inclusive and reciprocal engagement.

Search strategy: Peer review research was obtained from a prior scoping review searching eight databases consisting of all methodologies relevant to co-design or co-production in the context of health and social care services and involving service-users.

Methods of selection: Articles were included for synthesis if they reported a process of dialogue, with mutuality, insight and clarification in their engagement process. Ninety-three peer-review articles informed our programme theory development.

Analysis: Data relating to co-design and co-production processes were extracted and analysed through inductive, abductive, and deductive analysis leading to the development of an initial programme theory.

Main results: This realist synthesis finds that co-design and co-production can occur at different times, in part or all of the research and participatory process. There is an over reliance on the term ‘co-design’ or ‘co-production’ to convey complex engagement or participatory processes. We identified six mechanisms (intention, assets, dialogue, documentation, interpretation and understanding). Interaction between these six identified mechanisms in context, even if only brief, is important for supporting meaningful engagement, alignment and agreement within a co-design or co-production process.

Implications for practice: The initial programme theory presented in this article provides clarity by identifying essential mechanisms which can guide the design and implementation of a range of participatory approaches. Rather than relying on a single label to convey complex participatory methods or processes, the values and principles of co-design or co-production, in combination with this programme theory, could be applied to guide implementation and reporting of specific activities within a range of research or participatory methods.

Patient and public contribution: The initial programme theory was presented and piloted in a series of collaborative workshops between May 2023 and March 2024 with patient and public contributors, health professionals and researchers. This engagement process is currently underway to refine the programme theory and it is anticipated that this next phase will be completed in September 2024.

The aim of this review was to understand what needs to happen for meaningful engagement to take place by exploring how co-design and co-production in health and social care has been reported in published research. Ninety-three research articles were selected as these reported engagement processes with exchanges of mutual insight. Articles which only stated that engagement took place, without reporting details, were excluded. Any information relating to co-design and co-production processes were then extracted and analysed. The findings from this review were that co-design and co-production can occur at different times, in part or all of the research and engagement process. We identified that interaction between six key elements (intention, assets, dialogue, documentation, interpretation and understanding) in context, even if only brief, are important for meaningful engagement to occur within a co-design or co-production process. We also found that there is an over reliance on the term ‘co-design’ or ‘co-production’ to convey complex processes for engagement. Rather than relying on a single word to convey such complex methods or processes, the values and principles of co-design or co-production, in combination with the key elements identified, could be applied to guide implementation, and reporting of specific activities within a range of research methods.

Background: As coproduction in public services increases, understanding the role of leadership in this context is essential to the tasks of establishing relational partnerships and addressing power differentials among groups. The aims of this review are to explore models of coproduction leadership and the processes involved in leading coproduction as well as, based on that exploration, to develop a guiding framework for coproduction practices.

Methods: A systematic review that synthesizes the evidence reported by 73 papers related to coproduction of health and welfare.

Results: Despite the fact that models of coleadership and collective leadership exhibit a better fit with the relational character of coproduction, the majority of the articles included in this review employed a leader-centric underlying theory. The practice of coproduction leadership is a complex activity pertaining to interactions among people, encompassing nine essential practices: initiating, power-sharing, training, supporting, establishing trust, communicating, networking, orchestration, and implementation.

Conclusions: This paper proposes a novel framework for coproduction leadership practices based on a systematic review of the literature and a set of reflective questions. This framework aims to help coproduction leaders and participants understand the complexity, diversity, and flexibility of coproduction leadership and to challenge and enhance their capacity to collaborate effectively.

In 2002 University West received a specific mission from the Swedish government to develop Work-integrated learning (WIL), but already in 1990 the University Board of Directors branded the university “as the first and only WIL educational and research institution of higher education in Sweden” (Piperet al., 2023). Since 2020 University West also offers a PhD program in WIL with the aim to enhancelearning in the workplace (University West, 2023). However, WIL was a track within previous PhDprograms at University West. These actions are likely to impact the research outcomes of the university,but it is unknown to what extent this has happened especially in comparison to other universities inSweden. Governmental funding can have a powerful impact on institutional behavior (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2020), which likely also influences individual researchers’actions. In addition, organizational strategies of universities can also influence academic researchcollaboration (Kienast, 2023). Therefore, it is likely that the specific national mission and University West’s strategy concerning WIL has had traceable effects in research publications, however thebibliometric level of impact is unexplored.

Background: There is increasing evidence that co-design can lead to more engaging, acceptable, relevant, feasible, and even effective interventions. However, no guidance is provided on the specific designs and associated methods or methodologies involved in the process. We propose the development of the Preferred Components for Co-design in Research (PRECISE) guideline to enhance the consistency, transparency, and quality of reporting co-design studies used to develop complex health interventions.

Objective: The aim is to develop the first iteration of the PRECISE guideline. The purpose of the PRECISE guideline is to improve the consistency, transparency, and quality of reporting on studies that use co-design to develop complex health interventions.

Methods: The aim will be achieved by addressing the following objectives: to review and synthesize the literature on the models, theories, and frameworks used in the co-design of complex health interventions to identify their common elements (components, values or principles, associated methods and methodologies, and outcomes); and by using the results of the scoping review, prioritize the co-design components, values or principles, associated methods and methodologies, and outcomes to be included in the PRECISE guideline.

Results: The project has been funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Conclusions: The collective results of this project will lead to a ready-to-implement PRECISE guideline that outlines a minimum set of items to include when reporting the co-design of complex health interventions. The PRECISE guideline will improve the consistency, transparency, and quality of reports of studies. Additionally, it will include guidance on how to enact or enable the values or principles of co-design for meaningful and collaborative solutions (interventions). PRECISE might also be used by peer reviewers and editors to improve the review of manuscripts involving co-design. Ultimately, the PRECISE guideline will facilitate more efficient use of new results about complex health intervention development and bring better returns on research investments.