Background: Due to an increasingly elderly population, a higher incidence of chronic diseases and higher expectations regarding public service provision, healthcare services are under increasing strain to cut costs while maintaining quality. The importance of promoting systems of co-produced health between stakeholders has gained considerable traction both in the literature and in public sector policy debates. This study provides a comprehensive map of the extant literature and identifies the main themes and future research needs. Methods: A quantitative bibliometric analysis was carried out consisting of a performance analysis, science mapping, and a scientific collaboration analysis. Web of Science (WoS) was chosen to extract the dataset; the search was refined by language, i.e. English, and type of publication, i.e. journal academic articles and reviews. No time limitation was selected. Results: The dataset is made up of 295 papers ranging from 1994 to May 2019. The analysis highlighted an annual percentage growth rate in the topic of co-production of about 25%. The articles retrieved are split between 1225 authors and 148 sources. This fragmentation was confirmed by the collaboration analysis, which revealed very few long-lasting collaborations. The scientific production is geographically polarised within the EU and Anglo-Saxon countries, with the United Kingdom playing a central role. The intellectual structure consists of three main areas: public administration and management, service management and knowledge translation literature. The co-word analysis confirms the relatively low scientific maturity of co-production applied to health services. It shows few well-developed and central terms, which refer to traditional areas of co-production (e.g. public health, social care), and some emerging themes related to social and health phenomena (e.g. the elderly and chronic diseases), the use of technologies, and the recent patient-centred approach to care (patient involvement/engagement). Conclusions: The field is still far from being mature. Empirical practices, especially regarding co-delivery and co-management as well as the evaluation of their real impacts on providers and on patients are lacking and should be more widely investigated.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to provide a picture of the state of the art in social and environmental accounting research applied to the public sector, highlighting different streams and the main gaps in current literature and providing input for future research.Design/methodology/approach: A bibliometric method was used to analyse the characteristics, citation patterns and content of 38 papers published in international academic journals.Findings: The findings show that the research on social and environmental reporting in the public sector is still at an early stage. Current investigations, although slowly on the increase, are still very few and localised. Most papers are about the reasons why public organisations report, what and how they report, but there are so many aspects that need to be investigated more in-depth or require extra validation in order to open new directions for future research, among which the relationship with and the differences between other non-financial type of reporting, namely ICR and IR.Research limitations/implications: The study shows some limitations, mainly related to the adoption of the bibliometric method. Indeed, it does not take into account books and chapters but only papers published in international and academic journals. This leads to exclude a significant part of the existing literature and other relevant contributions on the field.Originality/value: Social and environmental reporting practices are quickly spreading in the public sector. The field is particularly interesting, given the specific connotations of this kind of organisations. However, the literature is clearly not exhaustive and there is not a comprehensive and systematic review of the state of the art on the subject.

Purpose: Understanding the outcomes of co-creation (CC) in healthcare is increasingly gaining multidisciplinary scientific interest. Although more and more service management scholars have pointed out the benefits of cross-fertilization between the various research fields, the literature on this topic is still scattered and poorly integrated. This study aims to summarize and integrate multiple strands of extant knowledge CC by identifying the outcomes of health CC and the determinants of these outcomes and their relationships.Design/methodology/approach: A structured literature review was conducted per PRISMA guidelines. A total of 4,189 records were retrieved from the six databases; 1,983 articles were screened, with 161 included in the qualitative thematic analysis.Findings: This study advances a comprehensive framework for healthcare CC based on a thorough analysis of the outcomes and their determinants, that is, antecedents, management activities and institutional context. Extant research rarely evaluates outcomes from a multidimensional and systemic perspective. Less attention has been paid to the relationship among the CC process elements.Research limitations/implications: This study offers an agenda to guide future studies on healthcare CC. Highlighting some areas of integration among different disciplines further advances service literature.Practical implications: The framework offers an operational guide to better shape managerial endeavors to facilitate CC, provide direction and assess multiple outcomes.Originality/value: This is the first extensive attempt to synthesize and integrate multidisciplinary knowledge on CC outcomes in healthcare settings by adopting a systematic perspective on the overall process.

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.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to analyze the financial structure of Italian cooperatives in the period before and during the crisis (2004-2013), in relation to two discriminating factors. At this end, it focuses on two research questions: What financial dynamics the Italian cooperatives have involved before, during and after the 2008 crisis, that is, in the decade 2004/2013? Are there statistically differences between business sectors and geographic area? Design/methodology/approach: Secondary data on AIDA database have been used. The financial structure is assessed using two ratios: the financial leverage ratio and quick ratio. The final sample consists of 1,446 cooperatives. The trend and exploratory analysis, analysis of variance and Tukey-Kramer post-hoc test have been used. Findings: The financial structure of cooperatives has not been substantially affected by the crisis in any geographic area and business sector, by virtue of resilience of their business model. Moreover, these two factors produce statistically significant differences in the financial structure of cooperatives. Research limitations/implications: The study takes into account only the cooperatives that survived the crisis, so, presumably, the strongest. Moreover, another and more ratios should be considered at the end to have a more complete view on the financial dynamics. Originality/value: The literature on resilience of cooperatives is still not very rich. Moreover, this work analyses and integrates aspects and approaches that are not usually considered together.