Co-production of health and social science research with vulnerable children and young people: A rapid review.
children and young people
co-production
rapid review
vulnerable
Journal
Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy
ISSN: 1369-7625
Titre abrégé: Health Expect
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9815926
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2024
Apr 2024
Historique:
revised:
23
01
2024
received:
10
07
2023
accepted:
03
02
2024
medline:
26
2
2024
pubmed:
26
2
2024
entrez:
26
2
2024
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The term 'care-experienced' refers to anyone who is currently in care or has been in care at any stage in their life. A complex interplay of factors leads to care-experienced children and young people (CECYP) experiencing poorer oral health and access to dental care than their peers. A rapid review of the co-production of health and social care research with vulnerable children and young people (CYP) was carried out to inform the development of a co-produced research project exploring the oral health behaviours and access to dental services of CECYP. Here, 'co-production' refers to the involvement of CYP in the planning or conduct of research with explicit roles in which they generate ideas, evidence and research outputs. To learn how to meaningfully involve vulnerable CYP in the co-production of health and social science research. To identify: Different approaches to facilitating the engagement of vulnerable CYP in co-production of health and social science research; different activities carried out in such approaches, challenges to engaging vulnerable CYP in co-production of health and social science research and ways to overcome them and areas of best practice in relation to research co-production with vulnerable CYP. A rapid review of peer-reviewed articles was conducted in six databases (MEDLINE, Embase, SocINDEX, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science) and grey literature to identify studies that engaged vulnerable CYP in co-approaches to health and social research. Of 1394 documents identified in the search, 40 were included and analysed. A number of different approaches to co-production were used in the studies. The CYP was involved in a range of activities, chiefly the development of data collection tools, data collection and dissemination. Individual challenges for CYP and researchers, practical and institutional factors and ethical considerations impacted the success of co-production. Co-production of health and social science with vulnerable CYP presents challenges to researchers and CYP calling for all to demonstrate reflexivity and awareness of biases, strengths and limitations. Used appropriately and well, co-production offers benefits to researchers and CYP and can contribute to research that reflects the needs of vulnerable CYP. Adherence to the key principles of inclusion, safeguarding, respect and well-being facilitates this approach. Members of our patient and public involvement and stakeholder groups contributed to the interpretation of the review findings. This manuscript was written together with a young care leaver, Skye Boswell, who is one of the authors. She contributed to the preparation of the manuscript, reviewing the findings and their interpretation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The term 'care-experienced' refers to anyone who is currently in care or has been in care at any stage in their life. A complex interplay of factors leads to care-experienced children and young people (CECYP) experiencing poorer oral health and access to dental care than their peers. A rapid review of the co-production of health and social care research with vulnerable children and young people (CYP) was carried out to inform the development of a co-produced research project exploring the oral health behaviours and access to dental services of CECYP. Here, 'co-production' refers to the involvement of CYP in the planning or conduct of research with explicit roles in which they generate ideas, evidence and research outputs.
AIM
OBJECTIVE
To learn how to meaningfully involve vulnerable CYP in the co-production of health and social science research.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
To identify: Different approaches to facilitating the engagement of vulnerable CYP in co-production of health and social science research; different activities carried out in such approaches, challenges to engaging vulnerable CYP in co-production of health and social science research and ways to overcome them and areas of best practice in relation to research co-production with vulnerable CYP.
SEARCH STRATEGY
METHODS
A rapid review of peer-reviewed articles was conducted in six databases (MEDLINE, Embase, SocINDEX, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science) and grey literature to identify studies that engaged vulnerable CYP in co-approaches to health and social research.
MAIN RESULTS
RESULTS
Of 1394 documents identified in the search, 40 were included and analysed. A number of different approaches to co-production were used in the studies. The CYP was involved in a range of activities, chiefly the development of data collection tools, data collection and dissemination. Individual challenges for CYP and researchers, practical and institutional factors and ethical considerations impacted the success of co-production.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Co-production of health and social science with vulnerable CYP presents challenges to researchers and CYP calling for all to demonstrate reflexivity and awareness of biases, strengths and limitations. Used appropriately and well, co-production offers benefits to researchers and CYP and can contribute to research that reflects the needs of vulnerable CYP. Adherence to the key principles of inclusion, safeguarding, respect and well-being facilitates this approach.
PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION
UNASSIGNED
Members of our patient and public involvement and stakeholder groups contributed to the interpretation of the review findings. This manuscript was written together with a young care leaver, Skye Boswell, who is one of the authors. She contributed to the preparation of the manuscript, reviewing the findings and their interpretation.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e13991Subventions
Organisme : The Borrow Foundation
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Watt RG. Social determinants of oral health inequalities: implications for action. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2012;40(s2):44-48.
NICE. Public Health Guidelines on Looked-After Children and Young People. NICE; 2015.
NHS England. Co-production. Accessed December 15, 2023. https://www.england.nhs.uk/always-events/co-production
Fieller D, Loughlin M. Stigma, epistemic injustice, and “looked after children”: the need for a new language. J Eval Clin Pract. 2022;28(5):867-874.
Public Health England. No Child Left Behind: Understanding and Quantifying Vulnerability. Public Health England; 2020.
Children's Commissioner for England. On Measuring the Number of Vulnerable Children in England. Children's Commissioner for England; 2017.
Bradshaw C, Atkinson S, Doody O. Employing a qualitative description approach in health care research. Glob Qual Nurs Res. 2017;4:233339361774228.
Grindell C, Coates E, Croot L, O'Cathain A. The use of co-production, co-design and co-creation to mobilise knowledge in the management of health conditions: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):877.
Bradbury-Jones C, Isham L, Taylor J. The complexities and contradictions in participatory research with vulnerable children and young people: a qualitative systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2018;215:80-91.
Greenhalgh T, Jackson C, Shaw S, Janamian T. Achieving research impact through co-creation in community-based health services: literature review and study. Milbank Q. 2016;94(2):392-429.
Voorberg WH, Bekkers VJJM, Tummers LG. A systematic review of co-Creation and co-production: embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Manag Rev. 2015;17(9):1333-1357. doi:10.1080/14719037.2014.930505
Slattery P, Saeri AK, Bragge P. Research co-design in health: a rapid overview of reviews. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):17.
Jull J, Giles A, Graham ID. Community-based participatory research and integrated knowledge translation: advancing the co-creation of knowledge. Implement Sci2017;12(1):150.
Ozer EJ. Youth-led participatory action research: developmental and equity perspectives. Adv Child Dev Behav. 2016;50:189-207.
Baum F. Participatory action research. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60(10):854-857.
Lushey C. Peer Research Methodology: Challenges and Solutions. Sage Publications Inc.; 2017.
van Schelven F, Boeije H, Mariën V, Rademakers J. Patient and Public Involvement of young people with a chronic condition in projects in health and social care: a scoping review. Health Expect. 2020;23(4):789-801.
Pavarini G, Lorimer J, Manzini A, Goundrey-Smith E, Singh I. Co-producing research with youth: the NeurOx young people's advisory group model. Health Expect. 2019;22:743-751.
NICE. Public and Patient Involvement Policy 2023. January 2024. Accessed December 15, 2023. https://www.nice.org.uk/about/nice-communities/nice-and-the-public/public-involvement/public-involvement-programme/patient-public-involvement-policy#principles-for-involving-children-and-young-people
Fløtten KJØ, Guerreiro AIF, Simonelli I, Solevåg AL, Aujoulat I. Adolescent and young adult patients as co-researchers: a scoping review. Health Expect. 2021;24(4):1044-1055.
Afifi RA, Makhoul J, El Hajj T, Nakkash RT. Developing a logic model for youth mental health: participatory research with a refugee community in Beirut. Health Policy Plan. 2011;26:508-517.
Dadswell A, O'Brien N. Participatory research with care leavers to explore their support experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Brit J Soc Work. 2022;52(6):3639-3657.
Gray C, Winter E. Hearing voices: participatory research with preschool children with and without disabilities. Eur Early Child Educ Res J. 2011;19(3):309-320.
Sime D. Ethical and methodological issues in engaging young people living in poverty with participatory research methods. Child Geogr. 2008;6(1):63-78.
Mawn L, Welsh P, Stain HJ, Windebank P. Youth speak: increasing engagement of young people in mental health research. J Ment Health. 2015;24:271-275.
Morris C, Simkiss D, Busk M, et al. Setting research priorities to improve the health of children and young people with neurodisability: a British Academy of Childhood Disability-James Lind Alliance Research Priority Setting Partnership. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e006233.
Brady G, Franklin A. Challenging dominant notions of participation and protection through a co-led disabled young researcher study. J Child Serv. 2019;14(3):174-185.
Lincoln AK, Borg R, Delman J. Developing a community-based participatory research model to engage transition age youth using mental health service in research. Fam Community Health. 2015;38(1):87-97.
Varjavandi R. Blessers must fall: youth-led participatory action research and photo story creation on teenage pregnancy, transactional sex and gender-based violence. Agenda. 2017;31(2):87-98. doi:10.1080/10130950.2017.1380453
Mitchell K, Durante SE, Pellatt K, Richardson CG, Mathias S, Buxton JA. Naloxone and the Inner City Youth Experience (NICYE): a community-based participatory research study examining young people's perceptions of the BC take home naloxone program. Harm Reduct J. 2017;14:34.
Ritterbusch AE, Boothby N, Mugumya F, et al. Pushing the limits of child participation in research: reflections from a Youth-Driven Participatory Action Research (YPAR) Initiative in Uganda. Int J Qual Methods. 2020;19:160940692095896.
Nichols N, Malenfant J. Health system access for precariously housed youth: a participatory youth research project. Soc Ment Health. 2022;12(2):137-154. doi:10.1177/21568693221082206
Alderson H, Brown R, Smart D, Lingam R, Dovey-Pearce G. ‘You've come to children that are in care and given us the opportunity to get our voices heard’: the journey of looked after children and researchers in developing a Patient and Public Involvement group. Health Expect. 2019;22:657-665.
Liddiard K, Runswick-Cole K, Goodley D, Whitney S, Vogelmann E, Watts L. “I was Excited by the Idea of a Project that Focuses on those Unasked Questions” co-producing disability research with disabled young people. Child Soc. 2019;33(2):154-167.
Kelly B, Friel S, McShane T, Pinkerton J, Gilligan E. “I haven't read it, I've lived it!”: the benefits and challenges of peer research with young people leaving care. Qual Soc Work. 2020;19(1):108-124. doi:10.1177/1473325018800370
Noom MJ, de Winter M, Korf D. The care-system for homeless youth in The Netherlands: perceptions of youngsters through a peer research approach. Adolescence. 2008;43(170):303-316.
Taylor J, Bradbury-Jones C, Hunter H, Sanford K, Rahilly T, Ibrahim N. Young people's experiences of going missing from care: a qualitative investigation using peer researchers. Child Abuse Review. 2014;23(6):387-401.
Törrönen ML, Vornanen RH. Young people leaving care: participatory research to improve child welfare practices and the rights of children and young people. Aust Soc Work. 2014;67(1):135-150.
Garcia AP, Minkler M, Cardenas Z, Grills C, Porter C. Engaging homeless youth in community-based participatory research: a case study from Skid Row, Los Angeles. Health Promot Pract. 2014;15:18-27.
Thulien M, Anderson H, Douglas S, et al. The generative potential of mess in community-based participatory research with young people who use(d) drugs in Vancouver. Harm Reduct J. 2022;19:30.
Hillier A, Kroehle K. “I'll Save You a Seat”: negotiating power in a Participatory Action Research Project with queer and trans young adults. Urban Educ. 2021;58:004208592110231.
Embleton L, Di Ruggiero E, Odep Okal E, et al. Adapting an evidence-based gender, livelihoods, and HIV prevention intervention with street-connected young people in Eldoret, Kenya. Glob Public Health. 2019;14(12):1703-1717. doi:10.1080/17441692.2019.1625940
Funk A, Van Borek N, Taylor D, Grewal P, Tzemis D, Buxton JA. Climbing the “ladder of participation”: engaging experiential youth in a participatory research project. Can J Public Health. 2012;103(4):e288-e292.
Lam GYH, Holden E, Fitzpatrick M, Raffaele Mendez L, Berkman K. “Different but connected”: participatory action research using photovoice to explore well-being in autistic young adults. Autism. 2020;24:1246-1259.
van Staa A, Jedeloo S, Latour JM, Trappenburg MJ. Exciting but exhausting: experiences with participatory research with chronically ill adolescents. Health Expect. 2010;13(1):95-107.
Curran T, Jones M, Ferguson S, et al. Disabled young people's hopes and dreams in a rapidly changing society: a co-production peer research study. Disabil Soc. 2021;36(4):561-578.
Coser LR, Tozer K, Van Borek N, et al. Finding a voice: participatory research with street-involved youth in the youth injection prevention project. Health Promot Pract. 2014;15(5):732-738.
Kramer J, Barth Y, Curtis K, et al. Involving youth with disabilities in the development and evaluation of a new advocacy training: Project TEAM. Disabil Rehabil. 2013;35(7):614-622. doi:10.3109/09638288.2012.705218
Chappell P, Rule P, Dlamini M, Nkala N. Troubling power dynamics: youth with disabilities as co-researchers in sexuality research in South Africa. Childhood. 2014;21(3):385-399.
Burke E, le May A, Kébé F, Flink I, van Reeuwijk M. Experiences of being, and working with, young people with disabilities as peer researchers in Senegal: the impact on data quality, analysis, and well-being. Qual Social Work. 2018;18(4):583-600.
Damian AJ, Ponce D, Ortiz-Siberon A, et al. Understanding the health and Health-Related social needs of youth experiencing homelessness: a photovoice study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19:9799.
INVOLVE. Reward and Recognition for Children and Young People Involved in Research-Things to Consider. NIHR; 2016.
Nichols J, Klein C, Mwangi D, Kimani S, Braitstein P. Innovative photography-based approach to evaluating a street children's drop-in centre from the user's perspective: Kenya. Turk Pediatri Arsivi. 2013;2:30.
Mawn L, Welsh P, Kirkpatrick L, Webster LAD, Stain HJ. Getting it right! Enhancing youth involvement in mental health research. Health Expect. 2016;19(4):908-919.
Dovey-Pearce G, Walker S, Fairgrieve S, Parker M, Rapley T. The burden of proof: the process of involving young people in research. Health Expect. 2019;22(3):465-474.
Bailey S, Boddy K, Briscoe S, Morris C. Involving disabled children and young people as partners in research: a systematic review. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2013;2:49.
Nowland R, Robertson L, Farrelly N, et al. Collaborative research methods and best practice with children and young people: protocol for a mixed-method review of the health and social sciences literature. BMJ Open. 2022;12(10):e061659.
Dixon J, Ward J, Blower SL. “They sat and actually listened to what we think about the care system”: the use of participation, consultation, peer research and co-production to raise the voices of young people in and leaving care in England. Child Care Pract. 2019;25(1):6-21.
Liabo K, Ingold A, Roberts H. Co-production with “vulnerable” groups: balancing protection and participation. Health Sci Rep. 2018;1(3):e19.
Hickey G, Brearley S, Coldham T, et al. Guidance on Co-producing a Research Project. INVOLVE; 2018.
Amann J, Sleigh J. Too vulnerable to involve? Challenges of engaging vulnerable groups in the co-production of public services through research. Int J Public Admin. 2021;44(9):715-727.