Co-creation: a new approach to optimising research impact?

Jackson, Claire L; Greenhalgh, Trisha

doi:10.5694/mja15.00219

Topics

Bold new world offers researchers opportunity and challenge

Traditionally, academics benchmarked their success with metrics of publication such as journal impact factors or their personal h-index (a citation measure). Increasingly, researchers are required to demonstrate impact beyond academia.

1 University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD
2 University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Correspondence: c.jackson@uq.edu.au

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

1. Nilsen P, Ståhl C, Roback K, Cairney P. Never the twain shall meet? A comparison of implementation science and policy implementation research. Implement Sci 2013; 8: 63.
2. Shiell A, Hawe P, Gold L. Complex interventions or complex systems? Implications for health economic evaluation. BMJ 2008; 336: 1281-1283.
3. Ramaswamy V, Gouillart F. Building the co-creative enterprise. Harvard Business Rev 2010; 88: 100-109.
4. Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, et al. The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage; 1994.
5. Greenhalgh T, Collard A, Begum N. Sharing stories: complex intervention for diabetes education in minority ethnic groups who do not speak English. BMJ 2005; 330: 628.
6. Greenhalgh T, Campbell-Richards D, Vijayaraghavan S, et al. New models of self-management education for minority ethnic groups: pilot randomized trial of a story-sharing intervention. J Health Serv Res Policy 2011; 16: 28-36.
7. Mathur R, Noble D, Smith D, et al. Quantifying the risk of type 2 diabetes in East London using the QDScore: a cross-sectional analysis. Br J Gen Pract 2012; 62: e663-670.
8. Greenhalgh T, Clinch M, Asfsar N, et al. Socio-cultural influences on the behaviour of South Asian women with diabetes in pregnancy: qualitative study using a multi-level theoretical approach. BMC Medicine 2015; 13: 120.
9. Tosh G, Soares-Weiser K, Adams CE. Pragmatic vs explanatory trials: the pragmascope tool to help measure differences in protocols of mental health randomized controlled trials. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 2011; 13: 209.
10. Cohn S, Clinch M, Bunn C, Stronge P. Entangled complexity: why complex interventions are just not complicated enough. J Health Serv Res Policy 2013; 18: 40-43.
11. Hinchcliff R, Greenfield D, Braithwaite J. Is it worth engaging in multi-stakeholder health services research collaborations? Reflections on key benefits, challenges and enabling mechanisms. Int J Qual Health Care 2014; 26: 124-128.
12. Ward PR, Thompson J, Barber R, et al. Critical perspectives on ‘consumer involvement’ in health research. Epistemological dissonance and the know-do gap. J Sociol 2010; 46: 63-82.
13. Scarbrough H, D’Andreta D, Evans S, et al. Networked innovation in the health sector: comparative qualitative study of the role of Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care in translating research into practice. Health Serv Deliv Res 2014; 2: 13.
14. King G, Servais M, Forchuk C, et al. Features and impacts of five multidisciplinary community-university research partnerships. Health Social Care Community 2010; 18: 59-69.
15. Wehrens R, Bekker M, Bal R. Hybrid management configurations in joint research. Sci Technol Human Values 2014; 39: 6-41.

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.