Introduction: The transition from hospital to home is often suboptimal, resulting in patients not receiving the necessary allied healthcare after discharge. This may, in turn, lead to delayed recovery, a higher number of readmissions, more emergency department visits and an increase in mortality and healthcare costs. This study aimed to gain insight into patients' experiences, perceptions, and needs regarding hospital-to-home transition, focusing on allied healthcare as a first step towards the development of a transitional integrated allied healthcare pathway for patients with complex care needs after hospital discharge. Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with patients. Participants were recruited from universities and general hospitals in the Amsterdam region between May and July 2023. They were eligible if they (1) were discharged from the hospital minimally 3 and maximally 12 months after admission to an oncologic surgery department, internal medicine department, intensive care unit, or trauma centre, (2) received hospital-based care from at least one allied healthcare provider, who visited the patient at least twice during hospital admission, (3) spoke Dutch or English and (4) were 18 years or older. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. We performed a thematic analysis of the interview data. Results: Nineteen patients were interviewed. Three themes emerged from the analysis. ‘Allied healthcare support during transition’ depicts patients' positive experiences when they felt supported by allied health professionals during the hospital-to-home transition. ‘Patient and family involvement’ illustrates how much patients value the involvement of their family members during discharge planning. ‘Information recall and processing’ portrays the challenges of understanding and remembering overwhelming amounts of information, sometimes unclear and provided at the wrong moment. Overall, patients' experiences of transitional care were positive when they were involved in the discharge process. Negative experiences occurred when their preferences for postdischarge communication were ignored. Conclusions: This study suggests that allied health professionals need to continuously collaborate and communicate with each other to provide patients and their families with the personalized support they need. To provide high-quality and person-centred care, it is essential to consider how, when, and what information to provide to patients and their families to allow them to contribute to their recovery actively. Patient or Public Contribution: The interview guide for this manuscript was developed with the assistance of patients, who reviewed it and provided us with feedback. Furthermore, patients provided us with their valuable lived experiences by participating in the interviews conducted for this study.
Active participation of stakeholders in health research practice is important to generate societal impact of outcomes, as innovations will more likely be implemented and disseminated in clinical practice. To foster a co-creative process, numerous frameworks and tools are available. As they originate from different professions, it is not evident that health researchers are aware of these tools, or able to select and use them in a meaningful way. This article describes the bottom-up development process of a compass and presents the final outcome. This Co-creation Impact Compass combines a well-known business model with tools from design thinking that promote active participation by all relevant stakeholders. It aims to support healthcare researchers to select helpful and valid co-creation tools for the right purpose and at the right moment. Using the Co-creation Impact Compass might increase the researchers’ understanding of the value of co-creation, and it provides help to engage stakeholders in all phases of a research project.
During the opening of the Hanze Energy Transition Centre or EnTranCe (2015-10-13) posters were on display for the King and for the public. During the opening these posters where accompanied by the researchers to explain their research in more detail if questions did arise.
De afgelopen twee decennia is er veel meer aandacht ontstaan bij onderzoekers en beleidsmakers voor het begrip co-creatie. Bijna altijd wordt de rol van co-creatie als positief en essentieel gezien in een proces waarin maatschappelijke of publieke uitdagingen worden onderzocht en opgelost (zogenaamde sociale innovatie). Het meeste onderzoek naar deze twee begrippen is kwalitatief van aard en gebaseerd op ‘case studies’.In zijn promotieonderzoek kijkt Peter Broekema naar de rol van co-creatie binnen sociale innovatie in Europese samenwerkingsprojecten. In zijn eerste artikel heeft hij de begrippen co-creatie en sociale innovatie tussen 1995 en 2018 binnen de EU geanalyseerd en geconcludeerd dat beide begrippen steeds breder gebruikt worden en samen met het begrip impact zijn getransformeerd tot een beleidsparadigma.In het tweede artikel keek Peter Broekema hoe beide begrippen doorwerken in specifieke subsidieoproepen en hoe consortia deze begrippen toepassen en samenwerken. Hierbij bleek dat er weliswaar verschillende typen consortia bestaan, maar dat zij geen specifieke co-creatiestrategie hadden.In zijn laatste twee artikelen zal hij gedetailleerd kijken naar een aantal EU projecten en vaststellen hoe de samenwerking is verlopen en hoe tevreden de verschillende partners zijn met het resultaat. Peter Broekema maakt hiervoor gebruik van projecten waarin hij zelf participeert (ACCOMPLISSH, INEDIT en SHIINE).EU beleidsparadigma van sociale innovatie in combinatie met co-creatie en impact. Co-creatie vindt vaak binnen eigen type stakehodlers plaatsAbstractSocial innovation and co-creation are both relatively new concepts, that have been studied by scholars for roughly twenty years and are still heavily contested. The former emerged as a response to the more technologically focused concept of innovation and the latter originally solely described the collaboration of end-users in the development of new products, processes or services. Between 2010-2015, both concepts have been adapted and started to be used more widely by for example EU policymakers in their effort to tackle so called ‘grand societal challenges’. Within this narrative – which could be called co-creation for social innovation, it is almost a prerequisite that partners – especially citizens - from different backgrounds and sectors actively work together towards specific societal challenges. Relevance and aimHowever, the exact contribution of co-creation to social innovation projects is still unclear. Most research on co-creation has been focussing on the involvement of end-users in the development of products, processes and services. In general, scholars conclude that the involvement of end-users is effective and leads to a higher level of customer satisfaction. Only recently, research into the involvement of citizens in social innovation projects has started to emerge. However, the majority of research on co-creation for social innovation has been focusing on collaborations between two types of partners in the quadruple helix (citizens, governments, enterprises and universities). Because of this, it is still unclear what co-creation in social innovation projects with more different type of partners entails exactly. More importantly however, is that most research has been based on national case studies in which partners from different sectors collaborate in a familiar ‘national’ setting. Normally institutional and/or cultural contexts influence co-creation (for example the ‘poldermodel’in the Netherlands or the more confrontational model in France), so by looking at projects in a central EU and different local contexts it becomes clear how context effects co-creation for social innovation.Therefore this project will analyse a number of international co-creation projects that aim for social innovation with different types of stakeholders in a European and multi-stakeholder setting.With this research we will find out what people in different contexts believe is co-creation and social innovation, how this process works in different contexts and how co-creation contributes to social innovation.Research question and - sub questionsThe project will answer the following question: “What is the added value of co-creation in European funded collaboration projects that aim for social innovation?” To answer the main question, the research has been subdivided into four sub questions:1) What is the assumed added value of co-creation for social innovation?2) How is the added value of co-creation for social innovation being expressed ex ante and ex post in EU projects that aim specifically for social innovation by co-creation?3) How do partners and stakeholders envision the co-creation process beforehand and continuously shape this process in EU projects to maximise social innovation?4) How do partners and stakeholders regard the added value of co-creation for social innovation in EU projects that that aim for social innovation?Key conceptsThe research will focus on the interplay between the two main concepts a) co-creation and b) social innovation. For now, we are using the following working definitions:a) co-creation is a non-linear process that involves multiple actors and stakeholders in the ideation, implementation and assessment of products, services, policies and systems with the aim of improving their efficiency and effectiveness, and the satisfaction of those who take part in the process.b) social innovation is the invention, development and implementation of new ideas with the purpose to (immediately) relieve and (eventually) solve social problems, which are in the long run directed at the social inclusion of individuals, groups or communities.It is clear that both definitions are quite opaque, but also distinguish roughly the same phases (ideation/invention, development, implementation and assessment) and also distinguish different levels (products/services, policies and systems). Both concepts will be studied within the policy framework of the EU, in which a specific value to both concepts has been attributed, mostly because policymakers regard co-creation with universities and end-users almost as a prerequisite for social innovation. Based on preliminary research, EU policies seem to define social innovation in close reation with ‘societal impact’, which could defined as: “the long lasting effect of an activity on society, because it is aimed at solving social problems”, and therefore in this specific context social innovation seems to encompasses societal impact. For now, I will use this working definition of social innovation and will closely look at the entanglement with impact in the first outlined paper.MethodologyIn general, I will use a qualitative mixed method approach and grounded theory to answer the main research question (mRQ). In order to better understand the added value of co-creation for social innovation in an EU policy setting, the research will:SubRQ1) start with an analysis of academic literature on co-creation and social impact. This analysis will be followed by and confronted with an analysis of EU policy documents. SubRQ2) use a qualitative data analysis at nineteen EU funded projects to understand how co-creation is envisoned within social innovation projects by using the quintuple helix approach (knowledge flows between partners and stakeholders in an EU setting) and the proposed social innovation journey model. By contrasting the findings from the QDA phase of the project with other research on social innovation we will be able to find arachetypes of social innovation in relation with the (perceived) added value of co-creation within social innovation. SubRQ3) These archetypes will be used to understand the process of co-creation for social innovation by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.SubRQ4) The archetypes will also be used to understand the perceived added value by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.ImpactThe project will contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between co-creation and social innovation on different levels:a) Theoretical: the research will analyse the concepts of co-creation and social innovation in relation to each other by looking at the origins of the concepts, the adaptation in different fields and the uptake within EU policies;b) Methodological: a model will be developed to study and understand the non-lineair process of co-creation within social innovation, by focusing on social innovation pathways and social innovation strategies within a quintuple helix setting (i) academia, ii) enterprises and iii) governments that work together to improve iv) society in an v) EU setting);c) Empirical: the project will (for the first time) collect data on behavioural interactions and the satisfaction levels of these interactions between stakeholders and partners in an EU project.d) Societal: the results of the research could be used to optimize the support for social innovation projects and also for the development of specific funding calls.
DISTENDER will provide integrated strategies by building a methodological framework that guide the integration of climate change(CC) adaptation and mitigation strategies through participatory approaches in ways that respond to the impacts and risks of climatechange (CC), supported by quantitative and qualitative analysis that facilitates the understanding of interactions, synergies and tradeoffs.Holistic approaches to mitigation and adaptation must be tailored to the context-specific situation and this requires a flexibleand participatory planning process to ensure legitimate and salient action, carried out by all important stakeholders. DISTENDER willdevelop a set of multi-driver qualitative and quantitative socio-economic-climate scenarios through a facilitated participatory processthat integrates bottom-up knowledge and locally-relevant drivers with top-down information from the global European SharedSocioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and downscaled Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) from IPCC. A cross-sectorial andmulti-scale impact assessment modelling toolkit will be developed to analyse the complex interactions over multiple sectors,including an economic evaluation framework. The economic impact of the different efforts will be analyse, including damage claimsettlement and how do sectoral activity patterns change under various scenarios considering indirect and cascading effects. It is aninnovative project combining three key concepts: cross-scale, integration/harmonization and robustness checking. DISTENDER willfollow a pragmatic approach applying methodologies and toolkits across a range of European case studies (six core case studies andfive followers) that reflect a cross-section of the challenges posed by CC adaptation and mitigation. The knowledge generated byDISTENDER will be offered by a Decision Support System (DSS) which will include guidelines, manuals, easy-to-use tools andexperiences from the application of the cases studies.
The purpose of this project was to create a roadmap with selected mechanisms to assist destination management organisations to optimize the benefits generated by tourism for their destination communities and ensure that it is shared equitably. By providing tools to identify and address inequality in terms of access to the benefits and value tourism generates, it is envisaged that a more equitable tourism model can be implemented leading to the fair distribution of benefits in destination communities, potentially increasing the value for previously excluded or underserved groups. To produce the roadmap, the study team will explore the range of challenges that hinder the equitable distribution of tourism-induced benefits in destinations as well as the enabling factors that influence the extent to which this is achieved. The central question the research team has set out to answer is the following: What does an equitable tourism model look like for destination communities?Societal issueHowever, while those directly involved in tourism will gain the most, the burden of hosting visitors is widely felt by local communities. This imbalance has, unsurprisingly, sparked civil mobilisations and protests in destinations around the world. It’s clear that placemaking and benefit-sharing must be part of the future of destination management to maintain public support. This project addressed issues around equity (environmental, economic, spatial, cultural and tourism experience). In line with the intentions set out in the CELTH Agenda Conscious Destinations.Benefit to societyBased on 25 case studies around 40 mechanisms were identified that can grow or better distribute the value from tourism, so that more people in destination communities benefit. These mechanisms are real-world practices already in use. DMOs and NTOs can consider introducing the mechanisms that best fit their destination context, pulling levers such as: taxes and revenue sharing, business incubation and training, licencing and zoning, community enterprises and volunteering, and product development..This report also outlines a pathway to an Equity-Driven Management (EDM) approach, which is grounded in participatory decision-making principles and aims to create a more equitable tourism system by strengthening the hand of destination governance and retaining control of local resources.Collaborative partnersNBTC, the Travel Foundation, Destination Think, CELTH, ETFI, HZ.
