Background: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the most common cause of incurable visual impairment and impacts daily life. There are benefits of physical activity for people who are affected with AMD; however, living with AMD is associated with lower levels of physical activity and social isolation. The aim of this study was to explore how older people with AMD in Sweden experienced participation in a 6-month empowerment-based physical activity intervention and how it influenced their physical abilities. Methods: The participants were nine individuals with AMD aged 70-87 years. The intervention comprised physical and social activities in a group twice a week and individual health coaching on three occasions. The study was based on an exploratory qualitative case study design. Results: The findings showed two themes: created meaningfulness in life and creative and playful ways to develop body movements. The findings also showed improved muscle strength after the intervention. Conclusions: The findings showed that participants had increased social connectedness, improved physical self-efficacy and physical ability, as well as improved muscle strength. The empowerment process of the intervention was appreciated by the participants and challenged them to participate in physical activity offered by the municipality for older individuals.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the potential of embedded research in bridging the gap between research evidence and its implementation in public health practice.
METHODS: Using a case study methodology, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 4 embedded researchers, 9 public health practitioners, and 4 other stakeholders (2 teachers and 2 students) across four case study sites. Sites and individuals were purposively selected. Sites included two local authorities, one secondary school, and one sports organisation. Thematic data analysis was adopted to analyse the qualitative data.
RESULTS: Four themes were identified: (1) building and maintaining relationships, (2) working with stakeholders, (3) informing practice, and (4) critical reflection.
CONCLUSIONS: Embedded researchers build and maintain relationships with practitioners and other stakeholders to produce research. Evidence from the co-produced research informs future practice and research to improve service and delivery rendered to the public. Thus, embedded researchers use their role to bridge the research evidence - implementation gap in public health practice.

Although including public contributors as members of research teams is becoming common, there are few reflections on how they have been incorporated, and almost none of these reflections are co-produced with public contributors. This commentary, written by both academics and a public contributor, reflects on Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) activities when undertaking a framework analysis of PPI sections of annual reports from the National Institute for Health and care Research (NIHR) funded research centres. The UK Standards for Public Involvement (inclusive opportunities, working together, support and learning, communications, impact and governance) were used to structure our reflections. Key topics of reflection were: how difficult it is, in practice, to incorporate PPI into all aspects of the research cycle, especially when completing a commissioned research project on a short time-frame, and the complexities of incorporating PPI into qualitative analysis. Although useful when reflecting upon our own PPI practices, ways in which the UK Standards for Public Involvement could be improved were suggested. We hope that the co-produced recommendations can be used by other teams engaging with public contributors.
Although including public contributors as members of research teams is becoming common, there are few reflections on how they have been incorporated, and almost none of these reflections are co-produced with public contributors. This commentary, written by both academics and a public contributor, reflects on Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) activities when undertaking an evaluation of PPI sections of annual reports from the National Institute for Health and care Research (NIHR) funded research centres. The UK Standards for Public Involvement (inclusive opportunities, working together, support and learning, communications, impact and governance) were used to structure our reflections. Key topics of reflection were: how difficult it is, in practice, to incorporate PPI into all aspects of the research cycle, especially when completing a commissioned research project within a short time-frame, and the complexities of incorporating PPI into qualitative analysis. Although useful when reflecting upon our own PPI practices, ways in which the UK Standards for Public Involvement could be improved were suggested. We hope that the co-produced recommendations can be used by other teams engaging with public contributors.

BACKGROUND: There is significant value in co-produced health research, however power-imbalances within research teams can pose a barrier to people with lived experience of an illness determining the direction of research in that area. This is especially true in eating disorder research, where the inclusion of co-production approaches lags other research areas. Appealing to principles or values can serve to ground collaborative working. Despite this, there has not been any prior attempt to co-produce principles to guide the work of a research group and serve as a basis for developing future projects.
METHODS: The aim of this piece of work was to co-produce a set of principles to guide the conduct of research within our lived experience led research clinic, and to offer an illustrative case for the value of this as a novel co-production methodology. A lived experience panel were recruited to our eating disorder research group. Through an iterative series of workshops with the members of our research clinic (composed of a lived experience panel, clinicians, and researchers) we developed a set of principles which we agreed were important in ensuring both the direction of our research, and the way in which we wanted to work together.
RESULTS: Six key principles were developed using this process. They were that research should aim to be: 1) real world-offering a clear and concrete benefit to people with eating disorders, 2) tailored-suitable for marginalised groups and people with atypical diagnoses, 3) hopeful-ensuring that hope for recovery was centred in treatment, 4) experiential-privileging the \'voice\' of people with eating disorders, 5) broad-encompassing non-standard therapeutic treatments and 6) democratic-co-produced by people with lived experience of eating disorders.
CONCLUSIONS: We reflect on some of the positives as well as limitations of the process, highlighting the importance of adequate funding for longer-term co-production approaches to be taken, and issues around ensuring representation of minority groups. We hope that other health research groups will see the value in co-producing principles to guide research in their own fields, and will adapt, develop, and refine this novel methodology.
It important that when researchers are trying to understand illnesses they do this together with people who have experienced them. This can be difficult, because researchers often take over—even if everyone is meant to be working as a team. We are a group of people trying to understand eating disorders and help people who have them get better. In our group there are some people that have experienced an eating disorder, health workers and researchers.We thought it might be helpful if we could start by working out what things were most important to us as a group, and then try to stick by them. We talked a lot together to come up with a list of principles.The six principles we thought were the most important were that research should make a difference to people’s lives, see people as individuals, be hopeful, make sure that people have a voice, look at things that aren’t traditional therapies, and always work together as equals.There are some issues with what we did; we found it hard to get a good mix of people in our group, and we were lucky in having enough money to pay people to do what we wanted to do, which is not always true. Despite this, we still hope that other teams might look at what we have done, and see if they could build on it, or change it, so it would work for them.

UNASSIGNED: International policies and legislation set a precedence of person-centred sustainable integrated Health and Social Care (HSC) that meets the health and wellbeing needs of service users through improved experiences. However, current research focuses on service models, with fewer studies investigating experiences and needs.
UNASSIGNED: This qualitative multi-case [n = 7] study was co-designed with key stakeholders and aimed to explore experiences and needs of people who access and provide HSC at home. Data were collected in a regional area of Scotland (UK) via single [n = 10] or dyad [n = 4] semi-structured interviews with service users [n = 6], informal carers [n = 5] and HSC staff [n = 7] and synthesised using Interpretive Thematic Analysis.
UNASSIGNED: Interpersonal connections and supportive relationships were instrumental in helping all participant groups feel able to cope with their changing HSC needs and roles. They promoted reassurance, information sharing and reduced anxiety; when they were lacking, it negatively impacted upon experiences of HSC.
UNASSIGNED: Promoting inter-personal connections that encourage supportive relationships between people who access and provide HSC and their communities, could promote person-centred Relationship-based care and improve HSC experiences.
UNASSIGNED: This study identifies indicators for improved HSC, advocating co-produced community-driven services to meet the self-defined needs of those who access and provide care.

Co-creation in healthcare, especially in developing digital health solutions, has been widely identified as a fundamental principle for person-centered technologies that could accelerate the adaptation of innovation. A Digital Health Living Lab based on community offers a sustainable and real-life environment to ideate, develop, and evaluate digital health solutions addressing the needs of multiple stakeholders. This article presents the experience of the School of Sport and Health Sciences at the University of Brighton in establishing a Digital Health Living Lab. In addition, we share a proposed step-by-step approach to establishing such a living lab in the community, supplemented by a case study of product development.

BACKGROUND:  Within the field of patient and public involvement in health service research, there is a growing movement towards not only involving patients in research but engaging them as co-producers of knowledge. We explore such a co-productive research relationship in a case study on rural perinatal mental health, with the aim of collaboratively developing knowledge based on both the relevant lived experience of a community partner, and the systemic knowledge of academic researchers.
METHODS:  Data was gathered through a community forum and subsequent interviews with social service program administrators from rural British Columbia, Canada. Interviews were analyzed separately by the community partner and academic researchers using principles of thematic analysis. Both the community partner and academic researchers were involved from project genesis to data collection, analysis, interpretation, and manuscript writing.
RESULTS: Common themes identified by the academic and community researchers included needs for peer support, barriers to peer support, and gaps in mental health care. Divergently, the academic researcher focused on systems-level challenges while the community partner emphasized the impact of power dynamics within health systems. Researchers generated five methodological values propositions from the process of co-production, including (a) mutual respect for all viewpoints, (b) a rejection of assumed hierarchy, (c) commitments to truth speaking, (d) attention to process, and (e) equivalence of contribution.
CONCLUSIONS: Co-production highlights the value of lived experience in health research, sets it in conversation with scientific inquiry, and moves away from hierarchies of assumed knowledge often embedded in traditional health care research. Incorporating both academic researcher and community partner writing into our paper reflects a commitment to maintaining the integrity and authenticity of lived experience, an affirmation of its equal validity as a source of knowledge, and a rejection of qualifying patient voices. The exploration of this co-production research relationship lays groundwork for future research teams considering collaborative methodology. We suggest co-productive research as a means of addressing the epistemic injustice that arises in health care research from the privileging of certain forms of knowledge, and the exclusion of others, namely that derived from patient experience.
Co-production is an approach to research where community partners and academic researchers work together to carry out a study. Our co-production team was made up of a community partner with lived experience of accessing mental health supports in rural areas, and academic researchers experienced in health systems design. Co-production emphasizes both the wisdom of lived experience and the importance of scientific approaches. What emerges is research that is both rigorous and authentic. While this form of patient partner research involvement is growing, few studies describe the process of collaboration. To address this gap, we present a case study of how university researchers worked with a patient partner on a project about mental health services for childbearing people in rural communities. The team worked together at every step, from initial study design, to reaching out to participants, reviewing the data, and writing the paper. We agreed our approach would be guided by principles such as respect for all viewpoints, speaking truth, attention to the process, and ensuring that everyone’s contributions were given equal weight. The academic researchers and the community partner identified many common themes in the data. The community partner also emphasized patient experiences of unequal treatment by health care providers. The academic researchers focused on the lack of access to perinatal mental health supports. Exploring differences in perspectives like this allowed for richer interpretation of the findings. This case study offers useful insight into the value of co-production and the important role of lived experience in improving health systems.

In health and physical activity promotion, there is growing interest in co-creation approaches that involve researchers and non-academic stakeholders in developing new interventions. Previous research has shown the promising results of cooperative planning as a co-creation approach in building new capacities and implementing physical activity-promoting interventions in nursing care and automotive mechatronics. However, it remains unclear whether (1) cooperative planning for physical activity promotion can be successfully transferred to other settings in the nursing care and automotive mechatronic sectors and (2) what key factors influence its success or failure.
We conducted a multiple case study in three settings in the nursing care and automotive mechatronics sectors. Following a mixed methods approach, we collected, analyzed, and triangulated data from documents (n = 17), questionnaires (n = 66), and interviews (n = 6). Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively and through using nonparametric analyses of variance; qualitative data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis by extraction.
The transfer of cooperative planning to new settings was realized, though the impact varied by setting. While the interventions were developed and implemented in nursing care settings, interventions were developed but not implemented in the automotive mechatronics setting. In this context, intervention implementation was influenced by 11 key factors: champion, commitment, embedment, empowerment, engagement, health-promoting leadership, ownership, relevance, resources, responsibility, and strategic planning. Furthermore, the transfer of cooperative planning was influenced by different activity characteristics, namely elaboration & reconsideration, group composition, number of meetings, participation, period, prioritization, and researchers\' input & support.
The present article contributes to a better understanding of a co-creation approach utilized for physical activity promotion and provides new insights into (1) the transferability of cooperative planning and (2) the associated key factors influencing intervention implementation. The success of cooperative planning varied by setting and was influenced by several activity characteristics and key factors, some of which showed complex relationships. This raises the question of whether some settings might benefit more from a co-creation approach than others. Therefore, future co-creation initiatives should carefully consider the specific characteristics of a setting to select and apply the most appropriate approach.

UNASSIGNED: Undertaking co-production as a power-sharing way to improve mental health dementia services remains uncommon, suggesting opportunities to apply knowledge from lived experience of people with dementia, may often be missed. One barrier is stigma, assuming people with progressive cognitive impairment cannot manage this level of participation, support peers nor offer a \"valid\" perspective.
UNASSIGNED: This paper shares knowledge gained from a service evaluation that explored various experiences of a person with dementia, their family supporter and mental health staff, involved in co-producing a course about \"living well\" with dementia, within a mental health Recovery College.
UNASSIGNED: A qualitative, case study approach used semi-structured interviewing and inductive thematic analysis.
UNASSIGNED: Co-production activities generated a shared sense of positivity, pride and privilege, highlighting positive effects in breaking down the \"them and us\" barriers common in traditional healthcare professional-service user relationships. Each individual had both something to offer and something to gain during the process. Staff identified challenges in the co-production process; in that balancing all the voices during meetings could be complex at times, and the process overall required considerable time commitment.
UNASSIGNED: Taking part in co-production at an appropriate level and with peer support is a relational activity seen to be valuable in powerfully, yet gently, challenging stigma and assumptions around dementia. Findings show that while the process of co-production requires time and dedication, there is overall value in involving people living with dementia both in co-production and in peer support. This provided a straightforward and beneficial means to inclusively improve post-diagnosis support and care quality within a memory service.

With the exceptional COVID-19 circumstances in early 2020, public service co-production went through a push towards digitalisation. Using normalisation process theory as the basis for analysis, the article looks at the immediate effects of digitalisation on restorative practices, which is a co-produced approach to delivering justice. A comparative case study conducted in Estonia, Finland, Ireland and Portugal showed that digitalisation meant a more directive role for the mediators and more responsibility for the citizens in organising the service context. The process became more business-like, which put some integral aspects of restorative justice at risk, such as trust building and feeling connected. The launch of digital restorative services depended more on service providers\' readiness to try digital solutions and less on service experience before digitalisation.