IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v50y2023i6p1018-1028..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Co-design and its consequences: developing a shared patient engagement framework in the IMI-PARADIGM project

Author

Listed:
  • Callum J Gunn
  • Sevgi E
  • Teresa Finlay
  • Lidewij Eva
  • Teun Zuiderent-Jerak
  • Tjerk Jan Schuitmaker-Warnaar

Abstract

Whilst patient engagement (PE) activities have become increasingly prevalent in development of medicines, collaborating actors have different perspectives on the goals of PE and its added value. In the production of PE standards and frameworks, the significance of these differences tends to be minimised. Boundary objects have been shown to mediate knowledge exchange between multiple social worlds, thereby playing an important role in participatory technology governance processes. In this article, we draw on boundary objects to learn from the process of co-designing a PE monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework within the Innovative Medicines Initiative–Patients Active in Research and Dialogues for an Improved Generation of Medicines (IMI-PARADIGM) consortium (2018–20). As facilitators of PARADIGM’s co-design process, we report on the challenges encountered in developing a practicable M&E framework that serves a variety of needs and interests. We argue these challenges of co-design reflect a negotiation of different frames throughout, thereby providing insight into how such work may contribute to addressing the challenge of knowledge integration in institutional medicines development settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Callum J Gunn & Sevgi E & Teresa Finlay & Lidewij Eva & Teun Zuiderent-Jerak & Tjerk Jan Schuitmaker-Warnaar, 2023. "Co-design and its consequences: developing a shared patient engagement framework in the IMI-PARADIGM project," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(6), pages 1018-1028.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:50:y:2023:i:6:p:1018-1028.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scad040
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mikhail Fominykh & Ekaterina Prasolova-Førland & Monica Divitini & Sobah Abbas Petersen, 2016. "Boundary objects in collaborative work and learning," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 85-102, February.
    2. Thomas Berker & Ann Kristin Kvellheim, 2018. "Boundary Objects As Facilitators in Sustainable Building Research," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(2), pages 202-210.
    3. Paul R. Carlile, 2002. "A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 442-455, August.
    4. Helga Pülzl & Ewald Rametsteiner, 2009. "Indicator development as ‘boundary spanning’ between scientists and policy-makers," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(10), pages 743-752, December.
    5. Hoffmann, Sabine & Pohl, Christian & Hering, Janet G., 2017. "Exploring transdisciplinary integration within a large research program: Empirical lessons from four thematic synthesis processes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 678-692.
    6. Allen, Davina, 2009. "From boundary concept to boundary object: The practice and politics of care pathway development," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 354-361, August.
    7. Esther Turnhout, 2009. "The effectiveness of boundary objects: the case of ecological indicators," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(5), pages 403-412, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Berenike Feldhoff & Nils Stockmann & Nora Fanderl & Anne-Kathrin Gahle & Antonia Graf & Matthias Leger & Marco Sonnberger, 2019. "Bridging Theories and Practices: Boundary Objects and Constellation Analysis as Vehicles for Interdisciplinary Knowledge Integration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-18, September.
    2. Srinivasan, M.S. & Jongmans, C. & Bewsell, D. & Elley, G., 2019. "Research idea to science for impact: Tracing the significant moments in an innovation based irrigation study," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 181-192.
    3. Klerkx, Laurens & van Bommel, Severine & Bos, Bram & Holster, Henri & Zwartkruis, Joyce V. & Aarts, Noelle, 2012. "Design process outputs as boundary objects in agricultural innovation projects: Functions and limitations," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 39-49.
    4. Krafft, Manfred & Sajtos, Laszlo & Haenlein, Michael, 2020. "Challenges and Opportunities for Marketing Scholars in Times of the Fourth Industrial Revolution," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-8.
    5. Jérôme Queste & Tom Wassenaar, 2019. "A practical dialogue protocol for sustainability science to contribute to regional resources management: its implementation in Réunion," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 43(1), pages 3-16, February.
    6. Sylvain Lenfle & Jonas Söderlund, 2019. "Large-Scale Innovative Projects as Temporary Trading Zones: Toward an Interlanguage Theory," Post-Print hal-02390158, HAL.
    7. Wiig, Siri & Robert, Glenn & Anderson, Janet E. & Pietikainen, Elina & Reiman, Teemu & Macchi, Luigi & Aase, Karina, 2014. "Applying different quality and safety models in healthcare improvement work: Boundary objects and system thinking," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 134-144.
    8. Sajtos, Laszlo & Rouse, Paul & Harrison, Julie & Parsons, Matthew, 2014. "Case-mix system as a boundary object: the case of home care services," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 189-196.
    9. Melo, Sara & Bishop, Simon, 2020. "Translating healthcare research evidence into practice: The role of linked boundary objects," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    10. Daniele T. P. Souza & Eugenia A. Kuhn & Arjen E. J. Wals & Pedro R. Jacobi, 2020. "Learning in, with, and through the Territory: Territory-Based Learning as a Catalyst for Urban Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-19, April.
    11. Matthew Hawkins, 2018. "Researching and marketing to consumption collectives," Post-Print hal-01809954, HAL.
    12. Beth A. Bechky, 2006. "Gaffers, Gofers, and Grips: Role-Based Coordination in Temporary Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 3-21, February.
    13. Marco Tortoriello & Ray Reagans & Bill McEvily, 2012. "Bridging the Knowledge Gap: The Influence of Strong Ties, Network Cohesion, and Network Range on the Transfer of Knowledge Between Organizational Units," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 1024-1039, August.
    14. Maggie Chuoyan Dong & Yulin Fang & Detmar W. Straub, 2017. "The Impact of Institutional Distance on the Joint Performance of Collaborating Firms: The Role of Adaptive Interorganizational Systems," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 309-331, June.
    15. Dean A. Shepherd & Jeffery S. Mcmullen & William Ocasio, 2017. "Is that an opportunity? An attention model of top managers' opportunity beliefs for strategic action," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(3), pages 626-644, March.
    16. Richard J. Boland & Kalle Lyytinen & Youngjin Yoo, 2007. "Wakes of Innovation in Project Networks: The Case of Digital 3-D Representations in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 631-647, August.
    17. Stefan N. Groesser & Niklas Jovy, 2016. "Business model analysis using computational modeling: a strategy tool for exploration and decision-making," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 61-88, February.
    18. J-G Cegarra-Navarro & M-T Sánchez-Polo, 2008. "Linking the individual forgetting context with customer capital from a seller's perspective," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(12), pages 1614-1623, December.
    19. Fran Ackermann & Colin Eden & Igor Pyrko, 2016. "Accelerated Multi-Organization Conflict Resolution," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(5), pages 901-922, September.
    20. Paola Perez-Aleman, 2011. "Collective Learning in Global Diffusion: Spreading Quality Standards in a Developing Country Cluster," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 173-189, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:50:y:2023:i:6:p:1018-1028.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.