Adopting, implementing and assimilating coproduced health and social care innovations involving structurally vulnerable populations: findings from a longitudinal, multiple case study design in Canada, Scotland and Sweden

Abstract

Background: Innovations in coproduction are shaping public service reform in diverse contexts around the world. Although many innovations are local, others have expanded and evolved over time. We know very little, however, about the process of implementation and evolution of coproduction. The purpose of this study was to explore the adoption, implementation and assimilation of three approaches to the coproduction of public services with structurally vulnerable groups. Methods: We conducted a 4 year longitudinal multiple case study (2019–2023) of three coproduced public service innovations involving vulnerable populations: ESTHER in Jönköping Region, Sweden involving people with multiple complex needs (Case 1); Making Recovery Real in Dundee, Scotland with people who have serious mental illness (Case 2); and Learning Centres in Manitoba, Canada (Case 3), also involving people with serious mental illness. Data sources included 14 interviews with strategic decision-makers and a document analysis to understand the history and contextual factors relating to each case. Three frameworks informed the case study protocol, semi-structured interview guides, data extraction, deductive coding and analysis: the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, the Diffusion of Innovation model and Lozeau’s Compatibility Gaps to understand assimilation. Results: The adoption of coproduction involving structurally vulnerable populations was a notable evolution of existing improvement efforts in Cases 1 and 3, while impetus by an external change agency, existing collaborative efforts among community organizations, and the opportunity to inform a new municipal mental health policy sparked adoption in Case 2. In all cases, coproduced innovation centred around a central philosophy that valued lived experience on an equal basis with professional knowledge in coproduction processes. This philosophical orientation offered flexibility and adaptability to local contexts, thereby facilitating implementation when compared with more defined programming. According to the informants, efforts to avoid co-optation risks were successful, resulting in the assimilation of new mindsets and coproduction processes, with examples of how this had led to transformative change. Conclusions: In exploring innovations in coproduction with structurally vulnerable groups, our findings suggest several additional considerations when applying existing theoretical frameworks. These include the philosophical nature of the innovation, the need to study the evolution of the innovation itself as it emerges over time, greater attention to partnered processes as disruptors to existing power structures and an emphasis on driving transformational change in organizational cultures.

Publication DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01130-w
Divisions: College of Health & Life Sciences > School of Psychology
College of Health & Life Sciences > Aston Institute of Health & Neurodevelopment (AIHN)
College of Health & Life Sciences
Funding Information: This manuscript draws on research supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Partnership Development grant no. 890‑2018‑0116.
Additional Information: Copyright © The Author(s) 2024. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Uncontrolled Keywords: Adoption,Assimilation,Case study,Structurally vulnerable populations,Coproduction,Implementation,Transformation,Humans,Learning,Canada,Sweden,Research Design,Longitudinal Studies
Publication ISSN: 1478-4505
Data Access Statement: The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to the study’s small sample size and the key informants’ roles as leaders within small organizations, making it difficult to deidentify their data. However, the datasets are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Last Modified: 14 May 2024 16:44
Date Deposited: 05 Apr 2024 16:38
Full Text Link:
Related URLs: https://health- ... 961-024-01130-w (Publisher URL)
http://www.scop ... tnerID=8YFLogxK (Scopus URL)
PURE Output Type: Article
Published Date: 2024-04-02
Published Online Date: 2024-04-02
Accepted Date: 2024-03-05
Authors: Mulvale, Gillian
Green, Jenn
Robert, Glenn
Larkin, Michael (ORCID Profile 0000-0003-3304-7000)
Vackerberg, Nicoline
Kjellström, Sofia
Hossain, Puspita
Moll, Sandra
Lim, Esther
Craythorne, Shioma-Lei (ORCID Profile 0000-0002-9075-947X)

Download

[img]

Version: Published Version

License: Creative Commons Attribution

| Preview

Export / Share Citation


Statistics

Additional statistics for this record