Co-produced practices and publications in the healthcare sector are gaining momentum, since they can be a useful tool in addressing the sustainability and resilience challenges of health systems. However, the investigation of positive and, mainly, negative outcomes is still confused and fragmented, and above all, a comprehensive knowledge of the metrics used to assess these outcomes is lacking. To fill this gap, this study aims to systematically review the extant literature to map the methods, tools and metrics used to empirically evaluate co-production in health services. The search took place in six databases: Scopus, Web of Science, Psych INFO, PubMed, Cochrane and CINAHL. A total of 2311 articles were screened and 203 articles were included in the analysis, according to PRISMA guidelines. Findings show that outcomes are mainly investigated through qualitative methods and from the lay actor or provider perspective. Moreover, the detailed categorisation of the quantitative measures found offers a multidimensional performance measurement system and highlights the impact areas where research is needed to develop and test new measures. Findings should also promote improvements in empirical data collection on the multiple faceted co-produced activities and spur the consciousness of the adoption of sustainable co-productive initiatives.

The involvement of vulnerable actors in co-production activities is a debated topic in the current public service literature. While vulnerable actors should have the same opportunities to be involved as other actors, they may not have the needed competences, skills and attitudes to contribute to this process. This paper is part of a broader project on family caregivers’ engagement in remote and rural areas. In particular, it investigates how to facilitate co-production by looking at four co-design workshops with family caregivers, representatives of a local home care agency and researchers. The transcripts of the workshops were coded using NVivo, and the data were analysed based on the existing theory about co-production. Two main findings were identified from the analysis. First, the adoption of co-production by vulnerable actors may occur in conjunction with other forms of engagement. Second, the interactions among facilitators and providers play a crucial role in encouraging the adoption of co-production. We identified at least two strategies that may help facilitators and providers achieve that goal. However, there is a need for an in-depth understanding of how facilitators and providers should interact to enhance implementation of co-production.

Background: Co-production has been widely recognised as a potential means to reduce the dissatisfaction of citizens, the inefficacy of service providers, and conflicts in relations between the former and the latter. However, the benefits of co-production has begun to be questioned: co-production has often been taken for granted, and its effects may not be effective. To understand and prevent unsuccessful citizen and provider collaboration, the recent literature has begun to focus on the causes of co-destruction. This paper investigates how the barriers that may arise during the co-production of a new social service with family carers can be identified and interpreted. Methods: To investigate this topic, we undertook a single case study - a longitudinal project (Place4Carers (Graffigna et al., BMJ Open 10:e037570, 2020)) intended to co-produce a new social care service with and for the family carers of elderly patients living in rural and remote areas. We organised collaborative co-assessment workshops and semi-structured interviews to collect the views of family carers and service providers on the co-production process. A reflexive approach was used in the analysis for collecting the opinions of the research team that participated in the co-production process. Results: The analysis revealed four main co-production barriers: lack of trust, lack of effectiveness of engagement, participants’ inability (or impossibility) to change and the lack of a cohesive partnership among partners. Despite these findings, the project increases carers’ satisfaction, competence and trust in service providers by demonstrating the positive effects of co-production. Conclusions: Our article confirms that co-creation and co-destruction processes may coexist. The role of researchers and service providers is to prevent or remedy co-destruction effects. To this end, we suggest that in co-production projects, more time should be spent co-assessing the project before, during and after the co-production process. This approach would facilitate the adoption of adjustment actions such as creating mutual trust through conviviality among participants and fostering collaborative research between academia and organisations that are not used to working together.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to study four cases of the adoption of co-production and compare them according to the type of user involvement, contextual factors and the organizational structure. Design/methodology/approach: In total, 30 interviews were conducted in four mental health organizations which are implementing co-production in the North of Italy. Interviews were conducted with clinicians, nurses, patients and family members. The data collected was triangulated with further sources and official documents of organizations. The results have been compared by means of a validated international framework (IAP2) regarding the contextual factors and the level of co-production adopted. Findings: The adoption of co-production in the four cases differs by the activities implemented and how organizations involve informal actors. It seems to be influenced by the contextual factors specific to each organization: power, professionals’ opinions and leadership. Organizations whose practitioners and leaders are willing to distribute their power and value informal actors’ opinions seem to facilitate the systematic involvement of users. Overall, the results highlight the importance of considering contextual factors when evaluating and describing co-production activities. Originality/value: This paper contributes to describing how mental health organizations are implementing co-production. It examines the influence of contextual factors on the type of co-production adopted.