↓ Skip to main content

Applying social innovation theory to examine how community co-designed health services develop: using a case study approach and mixed methods

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
289 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Applying social innovation theory to examine how community co-designed health services develop: using a case study approach and mixed methods
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-2852-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jane Farmer, Karen Carlisle, Virginia Dickson-Swift, Simon Teasdale, Amanda Kenny, Judy Taylor, Felicity Croker, Karen Marini, Mark Gussy

Abstract

Citizen participation in health service co-production is increasingly enacted. A reason for engaging community members is to co-design services that are locally-appropriate and harness local assets. To date, much literature examines processes of involving participants, with little consideration of innovative services are designed, how innovations emerge, develop and whether they sustain or diffuse. This paper addresses this gap by examining co-designed initiatives through the lens of social innovation - a conceptualisation more attuned to analysing grassroots innovation than common health services research approaches considering top-down, technical innovations. This paper considers whether social innovation is a useful frame for examining co-designed services. Eighty-eight volunteer community-based participants from six rural Australian communities were engaged using the same, tested co-design framework for a 12-month design and then 12-month implementation phase, in 24 workshops (2014-16). Mixed, qualitative data were collected and used to formulate five case studies of community co-designed innovations. A social innovation theory, derived from literature, was applied as an analytical frame to examine co-design cases at 3 stages: innovation growth, development and sustainability/diffusion. Social innovation theory was found relevant in examining and understanding what occurred at each stage of innovation development. Innovations themselves were all adaptations of existing ideas. They emerged due to local participants combining knowledge from local context, own experiences and exemplars. External facilitation brought resources together. The project provided a protective niche in which pilot innovations developed, but they needed support from managers and/or policymakers to be implemented; and to be compatible with existing health system practices. For innovations to move to sustainability/diffusion required political relationships. Challenging existing practice without these was problematical. Social innovation provides a useful lens to understand the grassroots innovation process implied in community participation in service co-design. It helps to show problems in co-design processes and highlights the need for strong partnerships and advocacy beyond the immediate community for new ideas to thrive. Regional commissioning organisations are intended to diffuse useful, co-designed service innovations. Efforts are required to develop an innovation system to realise the potential of community involvement in co-design.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 289 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 289 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 15%
Student > Master 41 14%
Researcher 27 9%
Student > Bachelor 20 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 6%
Other 52 18%
Unknown 91 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 59 20%
Business, Management and Accounting 26 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 24 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 8%
Design 9 3%
Other 47 16%
Unknown 101 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 May 2020.
All research outputs
#3,660,613
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,618
of 7,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,169
of 440,194 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#57
of 174 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,707 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 440,194 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 174 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.