Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jun 13;21(1):51.
doi: 10.1186/s12961-023-00990-y.

Evaluating the quality of research co-production: Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ + 4 Co-Pro)

Affiliations

Evaluating the quality of research co-production: Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ + 4 Co-Pro)

Robert K D McLean et al. Health Res Policy Syst. .

Abstract

Background: Co-production is an umbrella term used to describe the process of generating knowledge through partnerships between researchers and those who will use or benefit from research. Multiple advantages of research co-production have been hypothesized, and in some cases documented, in both the academic and practice record. However, there are significant gaps in understanding how to evaluate the quality of co-production. This gap in rigorous evaluation undermines the potential of both co-production and co-producers.

Methods: This research tests the relevance and utility of a novel evaluation framework: Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ + 4 Co-Pro). Following a co-production approach ourselves, our team collaborated to develop study objectives, questions, analysis, and results sharing strategies. We used a dyadic field-test design to execute RQ + 4 Co-Pro evaluations amongst 18 independently recruited subject matter experts. We used standardized reporting templates and qualitative interviews to collect data from field-test participants, and thematic assessment and deliberative dialogue for analysis. Main limitations include that field-test participation included only health research projects and health researchers and this will limit perspective included in the study, and, that our own co-production team does not include all potential perspectives that may add value to this work.

Results: The field test surfaced strong support for the relevance and utility of RQ + 4 Co-Pro as an evaluation approach and framework. Research participants shared opportunities for fine-tuning language and criteria within the prototype version, but also, for alternative uses and users of RQ + 4 Co-Pro. All research participants suggested RQ + 4 Co-Pro offered an opportunity for improving how co-production is evaluated and advanced. This facilitated our revision and publication herein of a field-tested RQ + 4 Co-Pro Framework and Assessment Instrument.

Conclusion: Evaluation is necessary for understanding and improving co-production, and, for ensuring co-production delivers on its promise of better health.. RQ + 4 Co-Pro provides a practical evaluation approach and framework that we invite co-producers and stewards of co-production-including the funders, publishers, and universities who increasingly encourage socially relevant research-to study, adapt, and apply.

Keywords: Community based participatory research; Engaged scholarship; Integrated knowledge translation; Participatory research; Research Quality Plus; Research Quality Plus for Co-Production; Research co-production; Research evaluation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

IDG is the scientific director of the IKTRN, AK is the deputy director of the IKTRN, CM is the manager of the IKTRN, JR is the research coordinator of the IKTRN.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Research life cycle
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Presents the field-tested and co-produced RQ + 4 Co-Pro framework
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Presents illustrative examples of RQ + uses across the co-production lifecycle

References

    1. Graham ID, Rycroft-Malone J, Kothari A, Mccutcheon C. Research coproduction in healthcare. Hoboken: Wiley; 2022.
    1. McLean RKD, Carden F, Graham ID, et al. Evaluating research co-production: protocol for the Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro) framework. Implement Sci Commun. 2022;3:28. doi: 10.1186/s43058-022-00265-7. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sibley KM, Hoekstra F, Kothari A, Mrklas K. Effects, facilitators, and barriers of research coproduction reported in peer-reviewed literature. In: Graham ID, Rycroft-Malone J, Kothari A, Mccutcheon C. Research coproduction in healthcare. Hoboken: Wiley. 2022. ISBN: 978-1-119-75725-2
    1. McLean RKD, Tucker J. Evaluation of CIHR’s Knowledge Translation Funding Program. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Ottawa, Canada. 2013. Available at: https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/47332.html.
    1. McLean R, Gargani J. Scaling Impact: Innovation for the public good. Routledge NYC. 2019. ISBN: 9781138605565

LinkOut - more resources