dc.contributor.author | Anderson, Kristen | |
dc.contributor.author | Foster, Michele M | |
dc.contributor.author | Freeman, Christopher R | |
dc.contributor.author | Scott, Ian A | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2018-05-08T01:04:33Z | |
dc.date.available | 2018-05-08T01:04:33Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2016 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 0025-729X | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.5694/mja16.00125 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10072/172929 | |
dc.description.abstract | Agoal of primary care research is to inform and
facilitate beneficial change in health care delivery
for both patients and clinicians in a way that is
efficient for providers and economically sustainable for
the health care system. Co-design or co-creation is a
process whereby researchers and stakeholders jointly
contribute to the ideation, planning, implementation and
evaluation of new services and systems as a possible
means to optimise the impact of research findings.1,2
Co-creation represents the highest form of stakeholder
engagement, building on existing theories such as
community-based participatory research,3 and
emphasises the creation of value for both end users and
researchers.
However, it is often infeasible to co-create with all
stakeholders at all stages of a research project. Decisions
must be made about which stakeholders to involve at
different stages to achieve the greatest return on
investment for researchers’ and stakeholders’ time and
contributions, considering the context in which change is
likely to occur.
In designing a controlled pilot study of a multifaceted
intervention to reduce inappropriate polypharmacy in
primary care involving 20 general practitioners and more
than 150 patients in south-east Queensland, we identified
both patients and prescribers as the most important
stakeholders. For this project, however, we proposed that
the critical gateway to effective co-creation in the first
instance was the GP, with both the GP and patient to be
involved in evaluating the pilot to inform future
development. In this article, we describe the rationale for
this approach, the process, challenge and value of cocreating
with GPs in the planning and implementation of
the intervention, and the anticipated value of involving
both patients and GPs in the pilot’s evaluation. | |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Yes | |
dc.language | English | |
dc.language.iso | eng | |
dc.publisher | Australasian Medical Publishing Company | |
dc.publisher.uri | https://www.mja.com.au/system/files/issues/204_07/10.5694mja16.00125.pdf | |
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom | S41 | |
dc.relation.ispartofpageto | S43 | |
dc.relation.ispartofissue | 7 | |
dc.relation.ispartofjournal | Medical Journal of Australia | |
dc.relation.ispartofvolume | 204 | |
dc.subject.fieldofresearch | Biomedical and clinical sciences | |
dc.subject.fieldofresearch | Psychology | |
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode | 32 | |
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode | 52 | |
dc.title | A multifaceted intervention to reduce inappropriate polypharmacy in primary care: research co-creation opportunities in a pilot study | |
dc.type | Journal article | |
dc.type.description | C2 - Articles (Other) | |
dc.type.code | C - Journal Articles | |
dc.description.version | Version of Record (VoR) | |
gro.rights.copyright | Anderson K, Foster MM, Freeman CR and Scott IA. A multifaceted intervention to reduce inappropriate polypharmacy in primary care: research co-creation opportunities in a pilot study. Med J Aust 2016; 204(7):S41-S44. © Copyright 2016 The Medical Journal of Australia – reproduced with permission. | |
gro.hasfulltext | Full Text | |
gro.griffith.author | Foster, Michele M. | |