Encyclopedia of Gerontology and Population Aging

Living Edition
| Editors: Danan Gu, Matthew E. Dupre

Participation and Co-production in the Care and Support of Older People

  • Trish Hafford-LetchfieldEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69892-2_369-1

Synonyms

Definition

Co-production in care refers to the active input by people who use care services, as well as – or instead of – those who traditionally provide them. This contrasts with approaches that treat people as passive recipients of services designed and delivered by someone else (Needham and Carr 2009). Co-production emphasizes that the people who use services have assets which can help be actively used to improve those services. These assets might involve their skills, lived experience, and expertise. These are welcomed within a spirit of mutuality and reciprocity in support that builds on the older person’s existing capabilities to facilitate change and to find shared and sustainable solutions. Co-production may involve moving resources as closely as possible to the older person for example, by giving them the opportunity to commission their own care from a nominated or actual budget or to make...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Almack K, Yip A, Seymour J et al (2016) The last outing: exploring end of life experiences and care needs in the lives of older LGBT people. Marie Curie Foundation. Nottingham University. https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/research/groups/ncare/projects/last-outing.aspx. Accessed 12 Feb 2019
  2. Ayalon L, Tesch-Römer C (2018) Contemporary perspectives on ageism. In: International perspectives on aging, vol 19. Springer, Cham, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  3. Blood I (2010) Older people with high support needs: how can we empower them to enjoy a better life. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York. https://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/default/files/jrf/migrated/files/older-people-and-high-support-needs-full.pdf. Accessed 12 Feb 2019Google Scholar
  4. Bown H (2016) Coproduction involving and led by older people – an evidence and practice review. National Development Team for Inclusion (NDTi), Bath. http://www.timebanking.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Coproductionandolderpeople-NDTi.pdf. Accessed 12 Feb 2019Google Scholar
  5. Bowers H, Lockwood S, Eley A et al (2012) Widening options for older people. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York. https://www.ndti.org.uk/uploads/files/older-people-support-choices-full.pdf. Accessed 12 Feb 2019Google Scholar
  6. Boyle D, Coote A, Sherwood C et al (2010) Right here, right now: taking co-production into the mainstream. National Endowment for Science Technology and the Arts, London. https://www.nesta.org.uk/report/co-production-right-here-right-now. Accessed 12 Feb 2019Google Scholar
  7. Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative (2010) A national interprofessional competency framework. www.cihc.ca/files/CIHC_IPCompetencies_Feb1210.pdf. Accessed 12 Feb 2019
  8. Clarke D, Jones F, Harris R et al (2017) What outcomes are associated with developing and implementing co-produced interventions in acute healthcare settings? A rapid evidence synthesis. BMJ Open 7:e014650.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cooper CL (2014) Introduction to ‘wellbeing’: a complete reference guide. In: Kirkwood TBL, Cooper CL (eds) Wellbeing in later life, vol IV. Wiley and Blackwell, West Sussex, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  10. Durose C, Beebeejaun Y, Rees J et al (2016) Towards co-production in research with communities; Report; AHRC Connected Communities Programme Scoping Studies; AHRC, London. https://ahrc.ukri.org/documents/project-reports-and-reviews/connected-communities/towards-co-production-in-research-with-communities. Accessed 12 Feb 2019
  11. Elwood P, Longley M (2010) My health: whose responsibility? J Epidemiol Community Health 64(9):761–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Francis R (2013) Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust public inquiry. The Stationary Office, London. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/report-of-the-mid-staffordshire-nhs-foundation-trust-public-inquiry. Accessed 12 Feb 2019Google Scholar
  13. Hafford-Letchfield T (2016) Learning in later life: challenges for social work and social care. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hafford-Letchfield T, Formosa M (2016) Mind the gap: An exploration of the role of lifelong learning in promoting co-production and citizenship within social care for older people. Eur J Res Educ Learn Adults 7(2):237–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hafford-Letchfield T, Lavender P (2015) Quality improvement through the paradigm of learning. Qual Ageing Older Adults 16(4):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hafford-Letchfield T, Lambley S, Spolander G, Cocker C (2014) Inclusive leadership: Managing to make a difference in social work and social care. Bristol, Policy PressGoogle Scholar
  17. Hafford-Letchfield T, Simpson P, Willis PB et al (2017a) Developing inclusive residential care for older lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) people: an evaluation of the Care Home Challenge action research project. Health Soc Care Community 26:e312–e320.  https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hafford-Letchfield T, Willis P, Almack K et al (2017b) Promoting inclusive services for LGBTQ&I older people in care homes: project report. Anchor Housing, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Hafford-Letchfield T, Willis P, Almack K et al (2017c) Promoting inclusive services for LGBTQ&I older people in care homes: assessment and development tool. https://tinyurl.com/y9e8nhkac6. Accessed 12 Feb 2019
  20. Kirkwood TBL, Cooper CL (2014) Wellbeing in later life, vol IV. Wiley and Blackwell, West Sussex, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  21. Kydd A, Fleming A, Gardner S et al (2018) Ageism in the third age. In: Ayalon L, Tesch-Römer C (eds) Contemporary perspectives on ageism. International perspectives on aging, vol 19. Springer, Cham, pp 115–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Latimer J, Davies T, Bagley MC et al (2011) Ageing science, health care and social inclusion of older people. Qual Ageing Older Adults 12(1):11–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lievesley N (2009) Ageism and age discrimination in secondary health care in the United Kingdom: a review from the literature. Centre for Policy on Aging Department of Health, London. http://www.cpa.org.uk/information/reviews/CPA-ageism_and_age_discrimination_in_secondary_health_care-report.pdf. Accessed 12 Feb 2019Google Scholar
  24. Manthorpe C (2010) Innovation and better lives for older people with high support needs: international good practice. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York. https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/innovation-and-better-lives-older-people-high-support-needs-international-good-practice. Accessed 12 Feb 2019Google Scholar
  25. Needham C, Carr S (2009) SCIE research briefing 31: co-production: an emerging evidence base for adult social care transformation. Social Care Institute for Excellence, London. https://www.scie.org.uk/publications/briefings/briefing31. Accessed 12 Feb 2019Google Scholar
  26. Nolan MR, Brown J, Davies S et al (2006) The senses framework: improving care for older people through a relationship-centred approach. Getting research into practice (GRIP) series no. 2. University of Sheffield, Sheffield. http://shura.shu.ac.uk/280/. Accessed 12 Feb 2019Google Scholar
  27. Parliamentary Service of Ombudsman (2011) Care and compassion? Report of the health service ombudsman on ten investigations into NHS care of older people. The Stationary Office, London. https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/sites/default/files/2016-10/Care%20and%20Compassion.pdf. Accessed 12 Feb 2019Google Scholar
  28. Phillips A, Morgan G (2014) Co-production within health and social care – the implications for Wales? Qual Ageing Older Adults 15(1):10–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rogers E (2009) Diffusion of innovations. 5th. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Simmons R (2009) Understanding the ‘differentiated consumer’ in public services. In: Simons R, Powell M, Greener I (eds) The consumer if public services: choice, values and difference. Policy Press, Bristol, pp 57–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) (2015) Co-production in social care: what it is and how to do it. Guide 51. SCIE, London. https://www.scie.org.uk/publications/guides/guide51/. Accessed 12 Feb 2019Google Scholar
  32. Stilgoe J (2007) The (co-)production of public uncertainty: UK scientific advice on mobile phone health risks. Public Underst Sci 16(1):45–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vennik FD, van de Bovenkamp HM, Putters K, Grit KJ et al (2016) Co-production in healthcare: rhetoric and practice. Int Rev Adm Sci 82:150–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Westwood S, Knocker S (2016) One-day training courses on LGBT awareness – are they the answer? In: Westwood S, Price E (eds) Lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans∗ (LGBT∗) individuals living with dementia: concepts, practice, rights. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 155–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Willis P, Maegusuku-Hewett T, Raithby M et al (2016) Swimming upstream: the provision of inclusive care to older lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) adults in residential and nursing environments in Wales. Ageing Soc 36(2):282–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Willis P, Almack K, Hafford-Letchfield T et al (2018) Turning the co-production corner: methodological reflections from an action research project to promote LGBT inclusion in care homes for older people. Int J Environ Res Public Health 15(4):695e.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15040695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wyman MF, Shiovitz-Ezra S, Bengel J (2018) Ageism in the health care system: providers, patients, and systems. In: Ayalon L, Tesch-Römer C (eds) Contemporary perspectives on ageism. International perspectives on aging, vol 19. Springer, Cham, pp 193–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social Work and Social PolicyGlasgowScotland

Section editors and affiliations

  • Xiaoling Xiang
    • 1
  • Emily Nicklett
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Social WorkUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.School of Social WorkUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA