How was it for you? Experiences of participatory design in the UK health service

Improving co-design methods implies that we need to understand those methods, paying attention to not only the effect of method choices on design outcomes, but also how methods affect the people involved in co-design. In this article, we explore participants' experiences from a year-long participatory health service design project to develop ‘Better Outpatient Services for Older People’. The project followed a defined method called experience-based design (EBD), which represented the state of the art in participatory service design within the UK National Health Service. A sample of participants in the project took part in semi-structured interviews reflecting on their involvement in and their feelings about the project. Our findings suggest that the EBD method that we employed was successful in establishing positive working relationships among the different groups of stakeholders (staff, patients, carers, advocates and design researchers), although conflicts remained throughout the project. Participants' experiences highlighted issues of wider relevance in such participatory design: cost versus benefit, sense of project momentum, locus of control, and assumptions about how change takes place in a complex environment. We propose tactics for dealing with these issues that inform the future development of techniques in user-centred healthcare design

Reflections and Experiences of a Co-Researcher involved in a Renal Research Study

Background Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) is seen as a prerequisite for health research. However, current Patient and public involvement literature has noted a paucity of recording of patient and public involvement within research studies. There have been calls for more recordings and reflections, specifically on impact. Renal medicine has also had similar criticisms and any reflections on patient and public involvement has usually been from the viewpoint of the researcher. Roles of patient and public involvement can vary greatly from sitting on an Advisory Group to analysing data. Different PPI roles have been described within studies; one being a co-researcher. However, the role of the co-researcher is largely undefined and appears to vary from study to study. Methods The aims of this paper are to share one first time co-researcher's reflections on the impact of PPI within a mixed methods (non-clinical trial) renal research study. A retrospective, reflective approach was taken using data available to the co-researcher as part of the day-to-day research activity. Electronic correspondence and documents such as meeting notes, minutes, interview thematic analysis and comments on documents were re-examined. The co-researcher led on writing this paper. Results This paper offers a broad definition of the role of the co-researcher. The co-researcher reflects on undertaking and leading on the thematic analysis of interview transcripts, something she had not previously done before. The co-researcher identified a number of key themes; the differences in time and responsibility between being a coresearcher and an Advisory Group member; how the role evolved and involvement activities could match the co-researchers strengths (and the need for flexibility); the need for training and support and lastly, the time commitment. It was also noted that it is preferable that a co-researcher needs to be involved from the very beginning of the grant application. Conclusions The reflections, voices and views of those undertaking PPI has been largely underrepresented in the literature. The role of co-researcher was seen to be rewarding but demanding, requiring a large time commitment. It is hoped that the learning from sharing this experience will encourage others to undertake this role, and encourage researchers to reflect on the needs of those involved.Peer reviewedFinal Published versio

Applying a User-centred Approach to Interactive Visualization Design

Analysing users in their context of work and finding out how and why they use different information resources is essential to provide interactive visualisation systems that match their goals and needs. Designers should actively involve the intended users throughout the whole process. This chapter presents a user-centered approach for the design of interactive visualisation systems. We describe three phases of the iterative visualisation design process: the early envisioning phase, the global specification hase, and the detailed specification phase. The whole design cycle is repeated until some criterion of success is reached. We discuss different techniques for the analysis of users, their tasks and domain. Subsequently, the design of prototypes and evaluation methods in visualisation practice are presented. Finally, we discuss the practical challenges in design and evaluation of collaborative visualisation environments. Our own case studies and those of others are used throughout the whole chapter to illustrate various approaches

Community-based adaptation research in the Canadian Arctic

Community-based adaptation (CBA) has emerged over the last decade as an approach to empowering communities to plan for and cope with the impacts of climate change. While such approaches have been widely advocated, few have critically examined the tensions and challenges that CBA brings. Responding to this gap, this article critically examines the use of CBA approaches with Inuit communities in Canada. We suggest that CBA holds significant promise to make adaptation research more democratic and responsive to local needs, providing a basis for developing locally appropriate adaptations based on local/indigenous and Western knowledge. Yet, we argue that CBA is not a panacea, and its common portrayal as such obscures its limitations, nuances, and challenges. Indeed, if uncritically adopted, CBA can potentially lead to maladaptation, may be inappropriate in some instances, can legitimize outside intervention and control, and may further marginalize communities. We identify responsibilities for researchers engaging in CBA work to manage these challenges, emphasizing the centrality of how knowledge is generated, the need for project flexibility and openness to change, and the importance of ensuring partnerships between researchers and communities are transparent. Researchers also need to be realistic about what CBA can achieve, and should not assume that research has a positive role to play in community adaptation just because it utilizes participatory approaches

Negotiating power relations, gender equality, and collective agency: are village health committees transformative social spaces in northern India?

BACKGROUND: Participatory health initiatives ideally support progressive social change and stronger collective agency for marginalized groups. However, this empowering potential is often limited by inequalities within communities and between communities and outside actors (i.e. government officials, policymakers). We examined how the participatory initiative of Village Health, Sanitation, and Nutrition Committees (VHSNCs) can enable and hinder the renegotiation of power in rural north India. METHODS: Over 18 months, we conducted 74 interviews and 18 focus groups with VHSNC members (including female community health workers and local government officials), non-VHSNC community members, NGO staff, and higherlevel functionaries. We observed 54 VHSNC-related events (such as trainings and meetings). Initial thematic network analysis supported further examination of power relations, gendered “social spaces,” and the “discourses of responsibility” that affected collective agency. RESULTS: VHSNCs supported some re-negotiation of intra-community inequalities, for example by enabling some women to speak in front of men and perform assertive public roles. However, the extent to which these new gender dynamics transformed relations beyond the VHSNC was limited. Furthermore, inequalities between the community and outside stakeholders were re-entrenched through a “discourse of responsibility”: The comparatively powerful outside stakeholders emphasized community responsibility for improving health without acknowledging or correcting barriers to effective VHSNC action. In response, some community members blamed peers for not taking up this responsibility, reinforcing a negative collective identity where participation was futile because no one would work for the greater good. Others resisted this discourse, arguing that the VHSNC alone was not responsible for taking action: Government must also intervene. This counter-narrative also positioned VHSNC participation as futile. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to strengthen participation in health systems can engender social transformation. However they must consider how changing power relations can be sustained outside participatory spaces, and how discourse frames the rationale for community participation.ISIScopu

Power to the people: To what extent has public involvement in applied health research achieved this?

Public involvement in applied health research is a pre-requisite for funding from many funding bodies. In particular the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) in the UK, clearly states that it values lay knowledge and there is an expectation that members of the public will participate as research partners in research. As a result a large public involvement infrastructure has emerged to facilitate this. However, there is concern that despite the flurry of activity in promoting public involvement, lay knowledge is marginalised and has limited impact on research decision-making. This article asks to what extent has power shifted from the scientific research community to the public? It discusses the meaning of power and models of public involvement and examines the development of public involvement in applied health research. It identifies public involvement in a range of decision-making: identifying priority areas for commissioning research; making decisions about which projects are funded; decisions about details of research design. Whilst there is evidence that the public voice is present in the composition of research proposals submitted to NIHR and in the decision-making about which projects are funded and how they are carried out, there is less evidence of a change in the power dynamic manifest in social relations between the scientific research community and the public. As a result the biomedical model remains dominant and largely unchallenged in research decision-making

Assessing the legitimacy of flood risk governance arrangements in Europe: insights from intra-country evaluations

Legitimacy has received comparatively less attention than societal resilience in the context of flooding, thus methods for assessing and monitoring the legitimacy of Flood Risk Governance Arrangements (FRGA) are noticeably lacking. This study attempts to address this gap by assessing the legitimacy of FRGAs in six European countries through cross-disciplinary and comparative research methods. On the basis of this assessment, recommendation

Mixed income housing (MIH)

Mixed Income Housing (MIH) is the outcome of a deliberate effort to build a mixed-income development, usually including a variety of housing typologies, sometime combined with the goal of creating a mixed-tenure development. International consensus on a more specific definition of MIH does not exist; instead, multiple expressions can be equally used, with similar meaning. The expression MIH is mainly used within the USA context where it is sometime replaced by mixed-income neighborhood. In Europe, MIH tend to fall within initiatives on (sustainable) urban regeneration, neighborhood restructuring, urban renewal, while the UK legislation often refers to “pepper-potting” with respect to different tenures in the same neighborhood aimed to achieve MIH. Non-English-speaking countries tend to use different terms. The MIH policies are challenged by a specific connotation, i.e., in the United States it is the combination between urban poverty and black or Latinos ghettoes; hence, spatial segregation is combined with racial considerations which are less present in other countries, except for South Africa. In the USA, desegregation in public housing estates became a legal obligation following the famous 1969 Gautreaux case, because of the application of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibiting racial discrimination in federally funded activities

Performed and preferred participation in science and technology across Europe: Exploring an alternative idea of "democratic deficit"

Republican ideals of active scientific citizenship and extensive use of deliberative, democratic decision making have come to dominate the public participation agenda, and academic analyses have focused on the deficit of public involvement vis-à-vis these normative ideals. In this paper we use latent class models to explore what Eurobarometer survey data can tell us about the ways in which people participate in tacit or in policy-active ways with developments in science and technology, but instead of focusing on the distance between observed participation and the dominant, normative ideal of participation, we examine the distance between what people do, and what they themselves think is appropriate in terms of involvement. The typology of citizens emerging from the analyses entails an entirely different diagnosis of democratic deficit, one that stresses imbalance between performed and preferred participation

'Collective Making' as knowledge mobilisation: the contribution of participatory design in the co-creation of knowledge in healthcare

The discourse in healthcare Knowledge Mobilisation (KMb) literature has shifted from simple, linear models of research knowledge production and action to more iterative and complex models. These aim to blend multiple stakeholders’ knowledge with research knowledge to address the researchpractice gap. It has been suggested there is no 'magic bullet', but that a promising approach to take is knowledge co-creation in healthcare, particularly if a number of principles are applied. These include systems thinking, positioning research as a creative enterprise with human experience at its core, and paying attention to process within the partnership. This discussion paper builds on this proposition and extends it beyond knowledge co-creation to co-designing evidenced based interventions and implementing them. Within a co-design model, we offer a specific approach to share, mobilise and activate knowledge, that we have termed 'collective making'. We draw on KMb, design, wider literature, and our experiences to describe how this framework supports and extends the principles of co-creation offered by Geenhalgh et al[1] in the context of the state of the art of knowledge mobilisation. We describe how collective making creates the right ‘conditions’ for knowledge to be mobilised particularly addressing issues relating to stakeholder relationships, helps to discover, share and blend different forms of knowledge from different stakeholders, and puts this blended knowledge to practical use allowing stakeholders to learn about the practical implications of knowledge use and to collectively create actionable products. We suggest this collective making has three domains of influence: on the participants; on the knowledge discovered and shared; and on the mobilisation or activation of this knowledge