A design-led framework for engaged research: Using a design approach to understand and place the public at the core of health and social care

Adalja, A. A., Toner, E., & Inglesby, T. V. (2020). Priorities for the US health community responding to COVID-19. JAMA, 323 (14), 1343–4. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.3413Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Ali, S. H., & Kurasawa, F. (2020, March 22). #COVID19: Social media both a blessing and a curse during coronavirus pandemic. Retrieved from http://theconversation.com/covid19-social-media-both-a-blessing-and-a-curse-during-coronavirus-pandemic-133596 [26 July 2021].Search in Google Scholar

Brett, J., Staniszewska, S., Mockford, C., Herron-Marx, S., Hughes, J., Tysall, C., & Suleman, R. (2014). Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: A systematic review. Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care and Health Policy, 17 (5), 637–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.xSearch in Google Scholar

Bridge, C. (2012). Citizen centric service in the Australian Department of Human Services: The department’s experience in engaging the community in co-design of government service delivery and developments in e-government services. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 71 (2), 167–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2012.00763.x10.1111/j.1467-8500.2012.00763.xSearch in Google Scholar

Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2011). Change by design. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28 (3), 381–3. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00806.x10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00806.xSearch in Google Scholar

Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8 (2), 5. https://doi.org/10.2307/151163710.2307/1511637Search in Google Scholar

Burton, L. J., Shé, É. N., & Olliver, S. (2015). Embedding an empowerment evaluation framework to create a ‘win-win’ engaged research partnership with communities. Retrieved from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Embedding-an-empowerment-evaluation-framework-to-a-Burton-Sh%C3%A9/6120239f00bc07911eaa0da1a56398e01fc5f1b8 [16 June 2021].Search in Google Scholar

Churchman, C. W. (1967). Guest editorial: Wicked problems. Management Science, 14 (4), B141–B142.Search in Google Scholar

Fransman, J. (2018). Charting a course to an emerging field of ‘research engagement studies’: A conceptual meta-synthesis. Research for All, 2 (2), 185–229. https://doi.org/info:doi/10.18546/RFA.02.2.0210.18546/RFA.02.2.02Search in Google Scholar

Groeneveld, B., Dekkers, T., Boon, B., & D’Olivo, P. (2018). Challenges for design researchers in healthcare. Design for Health, 2 (2), 305–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/24735132.2018.154169910.1080/24735132.2018.1541699Search in Google Scholar

Guy’s and St Thomas’ Biomedical Research Centre. (n.d.). Patient and public involvement toolkit. Retrieved from http://www.guysandstthomasbrc.nihr.ac.uk/researchers/patient-public-involvement-advice/ppi-toolkit/ [29 April 2020].Search in Google Scholar

Health Research Board. (2021). Health Research Board expands opportunity for the public, patients and carers to be involved in health research. Retrieved from https://www.hrb.ie/news/press-releases/single-press-release/article/health-research-board-expands-opportunity-for-ppi/ [31 May 2021].Search in Google Scholar

Hickey, G. (2018). The potential for coproduction to add value to research. Health Expectations, 21 (4), 693.10.1111/hex.12821Search in Google Scholar

Lindquist, E. A., Vincent, S., & Wanna, J. (2013). Putting citizens first: Engagement in policy and service delivery for the 21st century. Canberra: ANU Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lynch, B., Dunne, C., Aherne, F., & Kennan, A. (2019). Evidence for advocacy: A practical guide. Retrieved from https://hrci.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/6013-Evidence-for-Advocacy-Guide_WEB.pdf [16 June 2021].Search in Google Scholar

Lynch, P. (2020, March 22). We need a stronger health service – and not just in times of crisis. Retrieved from https://www.businesspost.ie/insight/we-need-a-stronger-health-service-and-not-just-in-times-of-crisis-c44b889e [29 April 2020].Search in Google Scholar

Mintrom, M., & Luetjens, J. (2016). Design thinking in policymaking processes: Opportunities and challenges, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 75 (3), 391–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.1221110.1111/1467-8500.12211Search in Google Scholar

National Institute for Health Research. (n.d.). What is public involvement in research? Retrieved from https://www.invo.org.uk/find-out-more/what-is-public-involvement-in-research-2/ [29 April 2020].Search in Google Scholar

NHS. (n.d.). Working with seldom heard groups. Retrieved from https://www.england.nhs.uk/participation/resources/involveseldom-heard/ [29 April 2020].Search in Google Scholar

Ní Shé, É., Davies, C., Blake, C., Crowley, R., McCann, A., Fullen, B., … & Kroll, T. (2018). What are the mechanisms that enable the reciprocal involvement of seldom heard groups in health and social care research? A rapid realist review protocol [version 1; peer review: 3 approved]. Retrieved from https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/1-7 [29 April 2020].Search in Google Scholar

Ní Shé, É., Morton, S., Lambert, V., Ní Cheallaigh, C., Lacey, V., Dunn, E., Loughnane, C., … & Kroll, T. (2019). Clarifying the mechanisms and resources that enable the reciprocal involvement of seldom heard groups in health and social care research: A collaborative rapid realist review process. Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care and Health Policy, 22 (3), 298–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.1286510.1111/hex.12865Search in Google Scholar

Ocloo, J., & Matthews, R. (2016). From tokenism to empowerment: Progressing patient and public involvement in healthcare improvement. BMJ Quality & Safety, 25, 626–32.10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004839Search in Google Scholar

O’Donnell, D., Ní Shé, É., McCarthy, M., Thornton, S., Doran, T., Smith, F., O’Brien, B., … & Cooney Marie, T. (2019). Enabling public, patient and practitioner involvement in co-designing frailty pathways in the acute care setting. BMC Health Services Research, 19 (1), 797. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4626-810.1186/s12913-019-4626-8Search in Google Scholar

Oliver, K., Kothari, A., & Mays, N. (2019). The dark side of coproduction: Do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research? Health Research Policy and Systems, 17 (33), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-019-0432-310.1186/s12961-019-0432-3Search in Google Scholar

Simon, H. A. (1988). The science of design: Creating the artificial. Design Issues, 4 (1/2), 67–82.10.2307/1511391Search in Google Scholar

Stickdorn, M., & Schneider, J. (2012). This is service design thinking: Basics, tools, cases (1st ed.). New Jersey: Wiley.Search in Google Scholar

Staley, K. (2015). ‘Is it worth doing?’ Measuring the impact of patient and public involvement in research. Research Involvement and Engagement, 1 (6).10.1186/s40900-015-0008-5Search in Google Scholar

UCD Conway Institute of Biomolecular and Biomedical Research. (n.d.). The patient voice in health research. Retrieved from https://www.ucd.ie/conway/engagement/forpublicpatients/ [29 April 2020].Search in Google Scholar

Whitham, R., Pérez, D., Mason, K., & Ford, C. (2019). Realising the value of open innovation in policy making: Equipping entrepreneurs for valuation work. The Design Journal, 22 (sup1), 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2019.159585710.1080/14606925.2019.1595857Search in Google Scholar

Windrum, P., Schartinger, D., Rubalcaba, L., Gallouj, F., & Toivonen, M. (2016). The co-creation of multi-agent social innovations: A bridge between service and social innovation research. European Journal of Innovation Management, 19 (2), 150–66. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-05-2015-003310.1108/EJIM-05-2015-0033Search in Google Scholar

World Health Organization. (2005). WHO outbreak communication guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/WHO_CDS_2005_28en.pdf [16 June 2020].Search in Google Scholar