Purpose Although researchers have explored parental perspectives on childhood speech and language disorders, this work has mostly been conducted in English-speaking countries. Little is known about parental experiences across countries. Participation in the COST Action IS1406 ‘Enhancing children’s oral language skills across Europe and beyond’ provided an opportunity to conduct cross-cultural qualitative interviews. The aims were to explore how parents construe inclusion and/or exclusion of their child and how parents involve themselves in order to facilitate inclusion. Method Parents from nine countries and with a child who had received services for speech-language disorder participated in semi-structured qualitative interviews. We used thematic analysis to analyze the data. Results Two overarching themes were identified: ‘Language disabilities led to social exclusion’ and ‘Promoting pathways to social inclusion’. Two subthemes were identified Interpersonal relationships are important and Deliberate proactiveness as stepping stones for social inclusion. Conclusions Across countries, parents report that their children’s hidden disability causes misunderstandings that can lead to social exclusion and that they are important advocates for their children. It is important that the voices and experiences of parents of children with developmental disabilities are understood and acknowledged. Parents’ recommendations about how to support social inclusion need to be addressed at all levels of society.
LINK
Purpose: To gain a rich understanding of the experiences and opinions of patients, healthcare professionals, and policymakers regarding the design of OGR with structure, process, environment, and outcome components. Methods: Qualitative research based on the constructive grounded theory approach is performed. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients who received OGR (n=13), two focus groups with healthcare professionals (n=13), and one focus group with policymakers (n=4). The Post-acute Care Rehabilitation quality framework was used as a theoretical background in all research steps. Results: The data analysis of all perspectives resulted in seven themes: the outcome of OGR focuses on the patient’s independence and regaining control over their functioning at home. Essential process elements are a patient-oriented network, a well-coordinated dedicated team at home, and blended eHealth applications. Additionally, closer cooperation in integrated care and refinement regarding financial, time-management, and technological challenges is needed with implementation into a permanent structure. All steps should be influenced by the stimulating aspect of the physical and social rehabilitation environment. Conclusion: The three perspectives generally complement each other to regain patients’ quality of life and autonomy. This study demonstrates an overview of the building blocks that can be used in developing and designing an OGR trajectory.
DOCUMENT
Introduction In 2016 a new form of integrated community treatment for patients with serious mental illnesses was implemented in two neighborhoods in the city of Utrecht (335000 inhabitants) in the Netherlands. Treatment is characterized by close collaboration of psychiatric care, somatic care (i.e. general practitioner, nurse practitioner), supported housing and other facilities, i.e. the police officer, and is provided in the direct neighborhood of the patients. This ‘neighborhood based integrated mental health care’ should not contribute solely to clinical recovery, but also specifically to social and personal recovery. Objectives The aim of this research was to investigate the experience of patients with serious mental illnesses themselves receiving this new form of neighborhood-based integrated mental health care. More specific the question is studied if and how neighborhood-based integrated mental health care supports personal and social recovery. Methods To assess the experience of patients in depth qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 patients. Patients were asked to participate in interviews directly by the researchers, by their case managers and by experts by experience. Interview topics included personal and social recovery, resilience and self-efficacy related to the collective effort of caregivers. Qualitative data was analyzed by three independent researches with the qualitative computer program Tarzan. Strategies to enhance quality of data analysis (respondent validation) and validity (attention to negative cases) were used. Results The study will be finished in January 2019. Conclusions The results, a brief description of the collaborative care methodology offered and experiences of patients, and conclusions will be presented at the ENMESH conference.
DOCUMENT
This project establishes a collaborative network centered around the Amsterdam Museum, comprising key stakeholders from prominent cultural institutions, including the Centraal Museum Utrecht and the Rotterdam Museum. The consortium is designed to explore the transformative potential of co-creation in museums, focusing on enhancing visitor engagement, fostering inclusivity, and integrating digital technologies into cultural practices. Key personnel will provide interdisciplinary expertise in communication and cultural heritage, facilitating a robust understanding of stakeholder dynamics and collaborative processes. The research aims to analyze how co-creation can bridge the gap between museums and their diverse audiences, creating a sense of ownership and connection. Initial observational findings suggest that co-creation practices significantly enhance visitor experiences while revealing stakeholders' desires for deeper collaborative opportunities. To achieve these objectives, qualitative methods such as semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and ethnographic observations will be employed, delivering rich insights into the impact of co-created programming. An essential output of this project will be an academic publication aimed at foundational research on effective co-creation practices within the cultural sector. Furthermore, the consortium will pursue a larger grant application to secure sustainable funding for ongoing research initiatives, ensuring the long-term viability and impact of this collaborative network. This will not only advance academic discourse but also facilitate knowledge transfer between academia and museums, enriching cultural engagement strategies. Ultimately, the project aspires to enhance the visibility and societal relevance of cultural institutions, fostering innovative solutions to contemporary challenges through collaborative research and community involvement.
Effectiveness of Supported Education for students with mental health problems, an experimental study.The onset of mental health problems generally occurs between the ages of 16 and 23 – the years in which young people follow postsecondary education, which is a major channel in ourso ciety to prepare for a career and enhance life goals. Several studies have shown that students with mental health problems have a higher chance of early school leaving. Supported Education services have been developed to support students with mental health to remain at school. The current project aims to study the effect of an individually tailored Supported Education intervention on educational and mental health outcomes of students with mental health problems at a university of applied sciences and a community college. To that end, a mixed methods design will be used. This design combines quantitative research (Randomized Controlled Trial) with qualitative research (focus groups, monitoring, interviews). 100 students recruited from the two educational institutes will be randomly allocated to either the intervention or control group.
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.
