Initiate:Collaborate

Initiate:Collaborate is a research informed tool kit which takes the form of a card game. This enables research groups to come together to think more critically about what makes for effective collaborations. With this toolkit teams will gain new insights into how personal value systems interact with the dominant perspectives within collaborations and create a manifesto to act as a blue print for working together as a research team

Unpacking two design for health living lab approaches for more effective interdisciplinary collaborations

This paper provides an overview of a research project that aimed to build understanding of resonances/differences across cultural contexts related to two design for health living labs, one based in a hospital in New Zealand and one with a more community focus based in a University in the United Kingdom. A series of collaborative workshops between designers and health practitioners and researchers during four exchanges were held in Auckland and Sheffield to unpack the approaches and projects of the two. Using the labs as case studies we explore how to best develop creative, dynamic and innovative approaches to developing new healthcare solutions. While the two labs operated in different contexts, we identified similar challenges when undertaking design for health projects, with respect to how to bring these different disciplines together for collaborative activities. The paper reflects on the findings of the study and ends with recommendations for future research and the development of strategies to support inter-disciplinary design for health collaborations

Exploring the value and role of creative practices in research co-production

Over the past two years, COVID has illustrated how research benefit can be accelerated when need, resources and opportunity coincide. It has also demonstrated the challenges of implementing even relatively simple evidence-based interventions, such as mask wearing and vaccines. The global pandemic response has repeatedly shown that Joe Langley et al 2 evidence use is a complex social process determined by multiple financial, political, ethical, technological, ecological, temporal, and social factors – often in tension with each other. It has underlined the myriad influences on, and gaps between, evidence, knowledge, and action and reminds us of the need for diverse views to inform policy and practice. Co-production is a method that can help weave social factors into the creation and shaping of policy and practice that is easily adopted. Its use has consequently proliferated, and the term has become ubiquitous within research and policy development. Despite this, questions remain regarding what constitutes co-production, what it involves and how to do it well (Green and Johns, 2019), particularly concerning the authenticity of its application and tokenistic use. A previous special issue of this journal (Metz et al, 2019) explored this topic looking at ‘Co-creative approaches to knowledge production’. The editors suggested ‘… a greater focus on the topic of creativity…’ and its application in this space would add to the debate and develop it further. This special issue now picks up that thread by setting out to explore: 1. How is creativity applied within co-production? 2. How does such creativity influence the incorporation of evidence into policy or practice? 3. What impact(s) or effect(s) does creativity have in these applications? 4. What are the implications of this, and for whom

Implementation in rehabilitation: a roadmap for practitioners and researchers

PURPOSE: Despite growth in rehabilitation research, implementing research findings into rehabilitation practice has been slow. This creates inequities for patients and is an ethical issue. However, methods to investigate and facilitate evidence implementation are being developed. This paper aims to make these methods relevant and accessible for rehabilitation researchers and practitioners.\ud METHODS: Rehabilitation practice is varied and complex and occurs within multilevel healthcare systems. Using a "road map" analogy, we describe how implementation concepts and theories can inform implementation strategies in rehabilitation. The roadmap involves a staged journey that considers: the nature of evidence; context for implementation; navigation tools for implementation; strategies to facilitate implementation; evaluation of implementation outcomes; and sustainability of implementation. We have developed a model to illustrate the journey, and four case studies exemplify implementation stages in rehabilitation settings. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Effective implementation strategies for the complex world of rehabilitation are urgently required. The journey we describe unpacks that complexity to provide a template for effective implementation, to facilitate translation of the growing evidence base in rehabilitation into improved patient outcomes. It emphasizes the importance of understanding context and application of relevant theory, and highlights areas which should be targeted in new implementation research in rehabilitation. Implications for rehabilitation Effective implementation of research evidence into rehabilitation practice has many interconnected steps and a roadmap analogy is helpful in defining them. Understanding context for implementation is critically important and using theory can facilitate development of understanding. Research methods for implementation in rehabilitation should be carefully selected and outcomes should evaluate implementation success as well as clinical change. Sustainability requires regular revisiting of the interconnected steps

Development of a toolkit to enhance care processes for people with a long-term neurological condition:A qualitative descriptive study

Objective To (A) explore perspectives of people with a long-term neurological condition, and of their family, clinicians and other stakeholders on three key processes: Two-way communication, self-management and coordination of long-term care; and (B) use these data to develop a Living Well Toolkit', a structural support aiming to enhance the quality of these care processes. Design This qualitative descriptive study drew on the principles of participatory research. Data from interviews and focus groups with participants (n=25) recruited from five hospital, rehabilitation and community settings in New Zealand were analysed using conventional content analysis. Consultation with a knowledge-user group (n=4) and an implementation champion group (n=4) provided additional operational knowledge important to toolkit development and its integration into clinical practice. Results Four main, and one overarching, themes were constructed: (1) tailoring care:referring to getting to know the person and their individual circumstances; (2) involving others: Representing the importance of negotiating the involvement of others in the person's long-term management process; (3) exchanging knowledge: Referring to acknowledging patient expertise; and (4) enabling: Highlighting the importance of empowering relationships and processes. The overarching theme was: Assume nothing. These themes informed the development of a toolkit comprising of two parts: One to support the person with the long-term neurological condition, and one targeted at clinicians to guide interaction and support their engagement with patients. Conclusion Perspectives of healthcare users, clinicians and other stakeholders were fundamental to the development of the Living Well Toolkit. The findings were used to frame toolkit specifications and highlighted potential operational issues that could prove key to its success. Further research to evaluate its use is now underway

Making sense of recovery after traumatic brain injury through a peer mentoring intervention:a qualitative exploration

Objective To explore the acceptability of peer mentoring for people with a traumatic brain injury (TBI) in New Zealand. Design This is a qualitative descriptive study exploring the experiences reported by mentees and mentors taking part in a feasibility study of peer mentoring. Interviews with five mentees and six mentors were carried out. Data were analysed using conventional content analysis. Setting The first mentoring session took place predischarge from the rehabilitation unit. The remaining five sessions took place in mentees' homes or community as preferred. Participants Twelve people with TBI took part: Six mentees (with moderate to severe TBI; aged 18-46) paired with six mentors (moderate to severe TBI >12 months previously; aged 21-59). Pairing occurred before mentee discharge from postacute inpatient brain injury rehabilitation. Mentors had been discharged from rehabilitation following a TBI between 1 and 5 years previously. Intervention The peer mentoring programme consisted of up to six face-to-face sessions between a mentee and a mentor over a 6-month period. The sessions focused on building rapport, exploring hopes for and supporting participation after discharge through further meetings and supported community activities. Results Data were synthesised into one overarching theme: Making sense of recovery. This occurred through the sharing of experiences and stories; was pivotal to the mentoring relationship; and appeared to benefit both mentees and mentors. Mentors were perceived as valued experts because of their personal experience of injury and recovery, and could provide support in ways that were different from that provided by clinicians or family members. Mentors required support to manage the uncertainties inherent in the role. Conclusions The insight mentors developed through their own lived experience established them as a trusted and credible source of hope and support for people re-engaging in the community post-TBI. These findings indicate the potential for mentoring to result in positive outcomes