Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2024

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Research

Action researchers as “orchestrators” of co-innovation: a theoretical and methodological framework

Authors: Marianne Eliassen, Cathrine Arntzen, Lina Forslund, Morten Nikolaisen, Patrik Alexandersson, Astrid Gramstad, Andreas Hellström

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2024

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

With the increasing complexity of health care services, more comprehensive and integrated services need to be designed. Action researchers are encouraged to facilitate multiactor participation and user-centered approaches to initiate service development. However, “orchestrating” co-innovation, in which actors have diverse attitudes, agendas, positions of power, and horizons of understanding, is challenging, and a framework that supports action researchers in co-innovation studies lack. The purpose of this article was to explore how action researchers can facilitate multiactor engagement and handle possible challenges and stimulate creativity among diverse stakeholders.

Methods

We have studied and discussed two Scandinavian cases of rehabilitation innovation (for cancer patients and persons with acquired brain injury) where two research teams with action research approaches have acted in an orchestrating role to create co-innovation.

Results

We identified four themes that are essential for action researchers to facilitate collaborative and creative co-innovation processes: (1) relational power reflexibility, (2) resource integration, (3) joint understanding, and (4) the facilitation of creativity. These mutually dependent themes constitute a theoretical and methodological framework for of co-innovation.

Conclusions

This paper offers a contribution that supports action researchers in orchestrating diverse actors and their contributions in co-innovation processes.
Literature
1.
2.
Chandra Y, Shang L, Roy MJ. Understanding healthcare social enterprises: a new public governance perspective. J Soc Policy. 2022;51(4):834–55.CrossRef
3.
Glouberman S, Mintzberg H. Managing the care of health and the cure of disease—part I: differentiation. Health Care Manag Rev. 2001;26(1):56–69.CrossRef
4.
5.
Kodner DL, Spreeuwenberg C. Integrated care: meaning, logic, applications, and implications–A discussion paper. Int J Integr Care. 2002;2(4):e12.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Crosby BC, Hart ‘T, Torfing P. Public value creation through collaborative innovation. Public Manag Rev. 2017;19(5):655–69.CrossRef
7.
8.
Roberts JP, Fisher TR, Trowbridge MJ, Bent C. A design thinking framework for healthcare management and innovation. Healthcare. 2016;4(1):11–4.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Saragih HS, Tan JD. Co-innovation: a review and conceptual framework. Int J Bus Innov Res. 2018;17(3):361–77.CrossRef
10.
Lee SM, Olson DL, Trimi S. Co-innovation: convergenomics, collaboration, and co‐creation for organizational values. Manag Decis. 2012;50(5):817–31.CrossRef
11.
Elg M, Engström J, Witell L, Poksinska B. Co-creation and learning in health‐care service development. J Serv Manag. 2012;23(3):328–43.CrossRef
12.
Osborne SP. From public service-dominant logic to public service logic: are public service organizations capable of co-production and value co-creation? Public Manag Rev. 2018;20(2):225–31.CrossRef
13.
Greenhalgh T, Jackson C, Shaw S, Janamian T. Achieving research impact through co-creation in community‐based health services: literature review and case study. Milbank Q. 2016;94(2):392–429.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
14.
Elg M, Gremyr I, Halldorsson Á, Wallo A. Service action research: review and guidelines. J Serv Mark. 2020;34(1):87–99.CrossRef
15.
Lifvergren S, Huzzard T, Hellström A. Action research and healthcare. Act Res. 2015;13:3–8.CrossRef
16.
Koch T, Kralik D. Participatory action research in health care. Singapore: Wiley; 2009.
17.
Eriksson E, Hellström A. Multi-actor resource integration: a service approach in public management. Br J Manag. 2021;32(2):456–72.CrossRef
18.
Osborne SP, Radnor Z, Strokosch K. Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: a suitable case for treatment? Public Manage Rev. 2016;18(5):639–53.CrossRef
19.
Torfing J. Collaborative innovation in the public sector: the argument. Public Manag Rev. 2019;21(1):1–11.CrossRef
20.
Windrum P, Schartinger D, Rubalcaba L, Gallouj F, Toivonen M. The co-creation of multi-agent social innovations: a bridge between service and social innovation research. Eur J Innov Manag. 2016;19(2):150–66.CrossRef
21.
Damanpour F. Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Acad Manag J. 1991;34(3):555–90.CrossRef
22.
Huzzard T, Hellström A, Lifvergren S. Whole system in the room: toward systems integration in healthcare. Health Commun. 2018;33(7):800–8.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Donetto S, Pierri P, Tsianakas V, Robert G. Experience-based co-design and healthcare improvement: realizing participatory design in the public sector. Des J. 2015;18(2):227–48.
24.
Chandra Y, Shang L, Roy MJ. Understanding healthcare social enterprises: a new public governance perspective. J Soc Policy. 2022;51.4: 834–55.
25.
Grenier C. Structuring an integrated care system: interpreted through the enacted diversity of the actors involved—the case of a French healthcare network. Int J Integr care. 2011;11:11.CrossRef
26.
Blaikie N. Approaches to social enquiry: advancing knowledge. Cambridge: Polity; 2007.
27.
Rostgaard T. Quality reforms in Danish home care–balancing between standardisation and individualisation. Health Soc Care Community. 2012;20(3):247–54.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Vike H. Politics and bureaucracy in the Norwegian welfare state: an anthropological approach. Porsgrunn: Springer; 2017.
29.
Valentijn PP, Schepman SM, Opheij W, Bruijnzeels MA. Understanding integrated care: a comprehensive conceptual framework based on the integrative functions of primary care. Int J Integr Care. 2013;13:e010.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
30.
31.
Shaikh NM, Kersten P, Siegert RJ, Theadom A. Developing a comprehensive framework of community integration for people with acquired brain injury: a conceptual analysis. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41(14):1615–31.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Arntzen C, Moe S, Aadal L, Pallesen H. Facilitating learning and change in the daily lives of stroke survivors: a comparative analysis of municipal stroke rehabilitation services in Norway and Denmark. Cogent Med. 2019;6(1):1608080.CrossRef
33.
Bettger JP, McCoy L, Smith EE, Fonarow GC, Schwamm LH, Peterson ED. Contemporary trends and predictors of postacute service use and routine discharge home after stroke. J Am Heart Assoc. 2015;4(2): e001038.CrossRef
34.
Fransson M, Quist J. Livshändelser för gemensamma medborgarmöten i svensk förvaltning: Ett diskussionsunderlag. In: Nationella rådet för innovation och kvalitet i offentlig verksamhet. 2011.
35.
Hellstrom A. Design i tjanstesystem |Designing service systems|. In: Holmlid S, Wetter-Edman K, editors. Tjanstedesign Principer och praktiker [Service design Principles and practices] edn. Lund: Studentlitteratur; 2021. p. 147–78.
36.
37.
Ellingsen G, Arntzen C, Forslund L, Nikolaisen M, Eliassen M, Gramstad A, Manskow U. Designing digital systems for rehabilitation practices. Tidsskrift Omsorgsforskning. 2023;2:67–78.CrossRef
38.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.CrossRef
39.
Cooperrider DL, Stavros JM, Whitney D. The appreciative inquiry handbook: for leaders of change. Berrett-Koehler; 2008.
40.
Gustavsen B. Action research, democratic dialogue, and the issue of critical mass in change. Qual Inq. 1996;2(1):90–103.CrossRef
41.
Foronda C, MacWilliams B, McArthur E. Interprofessional communication in healthcare: an integrative review. Nurse Educ Pract. 2016;19:36–40.PubMedCrossRef
42.
43.
Crosby BC, Bryson JM. Integrative leadership and the creation and maintenance of cross-sector collaborations. Leadersh Q. 2010;21(2):211–30.CrossRef
44.
Star SL, Griesemer JR. Institutional ecology,translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Soc Stud Sci. 1989;19(3):387–420.CrossRef
45.
Akkerman SF, Bakker A. Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Rev Educ Res. 2011;81(2):132–69.CrossRef
46.
Kimble C, Grenier C, Goglio-Primard K. Innovation and knowledge sharing across professional boundaries: political interplay between boundary objects and brokers. Int J Inf Manag. 2010;30(5):437–44.CrossRef
47.
Osborne SP, Brown L. Innovation, public policy and public services delivery in the UK. The word that would be king? Public Adm. 2011;89(4):1335–50.CrossRef
48.
Wegener C. Improvisation: Innovation-Fra nyhed til nærvær. In: Samskaping: Sosial innovasjon for helse og velferd. edn. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget; 2020. p. 66–79.
49.
Koppenjan JFM, Koppenjan J, Klijn EH. Managing uncertainties in networks: a network approach to problem solving and decision making. London: Psychology; 2004.CrossRef
50.
Herr K, Anderson GL. The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty. London: Sage publications; 2014.
51.
Metadata
Title
Action researchers as “orchestrators” of co-innovation: a theoretical and methodological framework
Authors
Marianne Eliassen
Cathrine Arntzen
Lina Forslund
Morten Nikolaisen
Patrik Alexandersson
Astrid Gramstad
Andreas Hellström
Publication date
01-12-2024
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2024
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-10779-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

BMC Health Services Research 1/2024 Go to the issue

Research

Is loneliness associated with cancellation of medical appointments during the COVID-19 pandemic? Evidence from the Hamburg City Health Study (HCHS)

Research

Do women living in a deprived neighborhood have higher maternity care costs and worse pregnancy outcomes? A retrospective population-based study

Research

A care coordination program to support patients with hepatitis B virus at Kaiser Permanente Mid-Atlantic States

Research

Indian Model of Integrated Healthcare (IMIH): a conceptual framework for a coordinated referral system in resource-constrained settings

Research

People living with HIV’s perspectives of acceptability of fee for home delivery of ART: a qualitative study

Research

Sex differences in cardiologic medication provision for adults with coronary heart disease: an analysis of health claims data from 2018 to 2020 in Saxony-Anhalt, Germany