"Research Usually Sits on Shelves, Through the Play It Was Shared." Co-producing Knowledge Through Post-show Discussions of Research-Based Theatre

What makes a good life: using theatrical performance to enhance communication about polygenic risk scores research in patient and public involvement

The aim of this patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) work was to explore improvised theatre as a tool for facilitating bi-directional dialogue between researchers and patients/members of the public on the topic of polygenic risk scores (PRS) use within primary or secondary care. PRS are a tool to quantify genetic risk for a heritable disease or trait and may be used to predict future health outcomes. In the United Kingdom (UK), they are often cited as a next-in-line public health tool to be implemented, and their use in consumer genetic testing as well as patient-facing settings is increasing. Despite their potential clinical utility, broader themes about how they might influence an individual's perception of disease risk and decision-making are an active area of research; however, this has mostly been in the setting of return of results to patients. We worked with a youth theatre group and patients involved in a PPIE group to develop two short plays about public perceptions of genetic risk information that could be captured by PRS. These plays were shared in a workshop with patients/members of the public to facilitate discussions about PRS and their perceived benefits, concerns and emotional reactions. Discussions with both performers and patients/public raised three key questions: (1) can the data be trusted?; (2) does knowing genetic risk actually help the patient?; and (3) what makes a life worthwhile? Creating and watching fictional narratives helped all participants explore the potential use of PRS in a clinical setting, informing future research considerations and improving communication between the researchers and lay members of the PPIE group.

The use of co-production, co-design and co-creation to mobilise knowledge in the management of health conditions: a systematic review

Background

Knowledge mobilisation is a term used in healthcare research to describe the process of generating, sharing and using evidence. ‘Co’approaches, such as co-production, co-design and co-creation, have been proposed as a way of overcoming the knowledge to practice gap. There is a need to understand why researchers choose to adopt these approaches, how they achieve knowledge mobilisation in the management of health conditions, and the extent to which knowledge mobilisation is accomplished.

Methods

Studies that explicitly used the terms co-production, co-design or co-creation to mobilise knowledge in the management of health conditions were included. Web of Science, EMBASE via OvidSP, MEDLINE via OvidSP and CINHAL via EBSCO databases were searched up to April 2021. Quality assessment was carried out using the Joanna Briggs Institute qualitative quality assessment checklist. Pluye and Hong’s seven steps for mixed studies reviews were followed. Data were synthesised using thematic synthesis.

Results

Twenty four international studies were included. These were qualitative studies, case studies and study protocols. Key aspects of ‘co’approaches were bringing people together as active and equal partners, valuing all types of knowledge, using creative approaches to understand and solve problems, and using iterative prototyping techniques. Authors articulated mechanisms of action that included developing a shared understanding, identifying and meeting needs, giving everyone a voice and sense of ownership, and creating trust and confidence. They believed these mechanisms could produce interventions that were relevant and acceptable to stakeholders, more useable and more likely to be implemented in healthcare. Varied activities were used to promote these mechanisms such as interviews and creative workshops. There appeared to be a lack of robust evaluation of the interventions produced so little evidence in this review that ‘co’approaches improved the management of health conditions.

Conclusion

Those using ‘co’approaches believed that they could achieve knowledge mobilisation through a number of mechanisms, but there was no evidence that these led to improved health. The framework of key aspects and mechanisms of ‘co’approaches developed here may help researchers to meet the principles of these approaches. There is a need for robust evaluation to identify whether ‘co’approaches produce improved health outcomes.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO CRD42020187463.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08079-y.